Madison Kelly wrote:
Is there a way to store the name in raw binary?
Yes: bytea.
-O
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
> There is a table t1(member_id integer primary key, member_name text,
> address text, phone text, email text). I have to reach each member by
> either adress, phone or email. Unfortunately some of address field
> have wrong encoded data. In this case I will use phone or email to
> reach them.
>
> Is there a way to store the name in raw binary? If so, would this not
> be safe because to postgresql it should no longer matter what data is or
> represents, right? Maybe there is a third option I am not yet concidering?
In the backup rename the file and add another file
.README
which expla
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 3:31 PM
> To: John Hansen
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-general@postgresql.org;
> pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Invalid unicode in COPY problem
>
> > Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > > Se
Am Sonntag, den 08.05.2005, 14:30 +0900 schrieb Tatsuo Ishii:
...
> Actually I myself thought as you are before. Later I found that it was
> not so good idea. People already have invalid encoded data in their
> precious database and have very hard time to migrate to newer version
> of PostgreSQL be
> Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 12:01 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Invalid unicode in COPY problem
> >
> > We have develo
"John Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> We have developed patches which relaxes the character
>> validation so that PostgreSQL accepts invalid characters.
> That is just plain 100% wrong!!
That was my first reaction too. Why would this be a good idea?
If someone does
Madison Kelly wrote:
>Under most circumstances I would agree with you completely. In my
> case though I have to decide between risking a loss of a
> user's data or
> attempt to store the file name in some manner that would
> return the same
> name used by the file system.
>
>The user
John Hansen wrote:
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
We have developed patches which relaxes the character
validation so that PostgreSQL accepts invalid characters. It
works like this:
That is just plain 100% wrong!!
Under no circumstances should there be invalid data in a database.
And if you're trying to ma
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 12:01 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Invalid unicode in COPY problem
>
> We have developed patches which relaxes the character
&g
Thank you, I would!
What versions have you tested the patch against? I am sorry but I am
not too familiar with applying patches against the main program, is
there documentation on how to apply the patch? Is there a way to roll
the patch back/remove it? Would I be able to script th
We have developed patches which relaxes the character validation so
that PostgreSQL accepts invalid characters. It works like this:
1) new postgresql.conf item "mbstr_check" added.
2) if mbstr_check = 0 then invalid characters are not accepted
(same as current PostgreSQL behavior). This is the
Hi all,
I've been chasing down a bug and from what I have learned it may be
because of how postgreSQL (8.0.2 on Fedora Core 4 test 2) handles
invalid unicode. I've been given some ideas on how to try to catch
invalid unicode but it seems expensive so I am hoping there is a
postgresql way to d
13 matches
Mail list logo
