Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: Differences in UTF8 between 8.0 and 8.1
- From: Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews(at)supernews(dot)com>
- To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: Differences in UTF8 between 8.0 and 8.1
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:56:02 -0000
- Message-id: <slrndm1g2i(dot)g61(dot)andrew+nonews(at)trinity(dot)supernews(dot)net>
On 2005-10-27, Paul Lindner <lindner(at)inuus(dot)com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 05:07:40AM -0000, Andrew - Supernews wrote: >> I'm inclined to suspect that the whole sequence c1 f9 d4 c2 d0 c7 d2 b9 >> was never actually a valid utf-8 string, and that the d2 b9 is only valid >> by coincidence (it's a Cyrillic letter from Azerbaijani). I know the 8.0 >> utf-8 check was broken, but I didn't realize it was quite so bad. > > Looking at the data it appears that it is a sequence of latin1 > characters. They all have the eighth bit set and all seem to pass the > check. In latin1 it comes out as total gibberish, so I think you'll find it is actually in something else. Some googling suggests it is most likely in a Chinese double-byte charset (GB2312). -- Andrew, Supernews http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
- References:
- Differences in UTF8 between 8.0 and 8.1
- From: Paul Lindner
- Re: Differences in UTF8 between 8.0 and 8.1
- From: Andrew - Supernews
- Re: Differences in UTF8 between 8.0 and 8.1
- From: Paul Lindner
- Re: Differences in UTF8 between 8.0 and 8.1
- From: Andrew - Supernews
- Re: Differences in UTF8 between 8.0 and 8.1
- From: Paul Lindner
- Differences in UTF8 between 8.0 and 8.1
- Prev by Date: Ideas for easier debugging of backend problems
- Next by Date: Re: ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size <a_big_number_here>
- Previous by thread: Re: Differences in UTF8 between 8.0 and 8.1
- Next by thread: Query Progress Estimator
- Indexes: