Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Force strings passed to and from plperl to be in UTF8 encoding.

From: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Khandekar <amit(dot)khandekar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Force strings passed to and from plperl to be in UTF8 encoding.
Date: 2011-10-05 06:30:01
Message-ID: CAFaPBrSrsKFL7tJ2HM1Z6UvsjMGv19Q2vkDQi=rXSnYfE=Mv5w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 23:46, Amit Khandekar
<amit(dot)khandekar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On 4 October 2011 22:57, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 03:09, Amit Khandekar
>> <amit(dot)khandekar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On 4 October 2011 14:04, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 23:35, Amit Khandekar
>>>> <amit(dot)khandekar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> WHen GetDatabaseEncoding() != PG_UTF8 case, ret will not be equal to
>>>>> utf8_str, so pg_verify_mbstr_len() will not get called. [...]
>>>>
>>>> Consider a latin1 database where utf8_str was a string of ascii
>>>> characters. [...]
>>
>>>> [Patch] Look ok to you?
>>>>
>>>
>>> +       if(GetDatabaseEncoding() == PG_UTF8)
>>> +               pg_verify_mbstr_len(PG_UTF8, utf8_str, len, false);
>>>
>>> In your patch, the above will again skip mb-validation if the database
>>> encoding is SQL_ASCII. Note that in pg_do_encoding_conversion returns
>>> the un-converted string even if *one* of the src and dest encodings is
>>> SQL_ASCII.
>>
>> *scratches head* I thought the point of SQL_ASCII was no encoding
>> conversion was done and so there would be nothing to verify.
>>
>> Ahh I see looks like pg_verify_mbstr_len() will make sure there are no
>> NULL bytes in the string when we are a single byte encoding.
>>
>>> I think :
>>>        if (ret == utf8_str)
>>> +       {
>>> +               pg_verify_mbstr_len(PG_UTF8, utf8_str, len, false);
>>>                ret = pstrdup(ret);
>>> +       }
>>>
>>> This (ret == utf8_str) condition would be a reliable way for knowing
>>> whether pg_do_encoding_conversion() has done the conversion at all.
>>
>> Yes. However (and maybe im nitpicking here), I dont see any reason to
>> verify certain strings twice if we can avoid it.
>>
>> What do you think about:
>> +    /*
>> +    * when we are a PG_UTF8 or SQL_ASCII database pg_do_encoding_conversion()
>> +    * will not do any conversion or verification. we need to do it
>> manually instead.
>> +    */
>> +       if( GetDatabaseEncoding() == PG_UTF8 ||
>>              GetDatabaseEncoding() == SQL_ASCII)
>> +               pg_verify_mbstr_len(PG_UTF8, utf8_str, len, false);
>>
>
> You mean the final changes in plperl_helpers.h would look like
> something like this right? :
>
>  static inline char *
>  utf_u2e(const char *utf8_str, size_t len)
>  {
>        char       *ret = (char *) pg_do_encoding_conversion((unsigned
> char *) utf8_str, len, PG_UTF8, GetDatabaseEncoding());
>
>        if (ret == utf8_str)
> +       {
> +               if (GetDatabaseEncoding() == PG_UTF8 ||
> +                       GetDatabaseEncoding() == PG_SQL_ASCII)
> +               {
> +                       pg_verify_mbstr_len(PG_UTF8, utf8_str, len, false);
> +               }
> +
>                ret = pstrdup(ret);
> +       }
>        return ret;
>  }

Yes.

> Yeah I am ok with that. It's just an additional check besides (ret ==
> utf8_str) to know if we really require validation.
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Hunsaker 2011-10-05 06:59:47 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Force strings passed to and from plperl to be in UTF8 encoding.
Previous Message Amit Khandekar 2011-10-05 05:46:02 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Force strings passed to and from plperl to be in UTF8 encoding.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2011-10-05 06:52:24 Re: Displaying accumulated autovacuum cost
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2011-10-05 06:27:59 Re: Action requested - Application Softblock implemented | Issue report ID341057