Re: [HACKERS] LISTEN/NOTIFY versus encoding conversion

2010-02-15 Thread Jeff Davis
On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 15:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Most obviously, we could also get an encoding conversion failure on the notify condition name --- but we've never enforced a character set restriction on that, and nobody's ever complained about it AFAIR. If the client successfully executed

Re: [HACKERS] LISTEN/NOTIFY versus encoding conversion

2010-02-15 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes: On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 15:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Most obviously, we could also get an encoding conversion failure on the notify condition name --- but we've never enforced a character set restriction on that, and nobody's ever complained about it AFAIR.

Re: [HACKERS] LISTEN/NOTIFY versus encoding conversion

2010-02-15 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 03:15:30PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: So the currently submitted patch is logically inconsistent. If we enforce a character set restriction on the payload for fear of being unable to convert it to the destination client_encoding, then we should logically do the same for

Re: [HACKERS] LISTEN/NOTIFY versus encoding conversion

2010-02-15 Thread Jeff Davis
On Mon, 2010-02-15 at 13:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: You're assuming that the LISTEN was transmitted across the connection, and not for example executed by a pre-existing function. Ok, good point. In practice, since encoding conversion failures could interfere with the results of almost any

[HACKERS] LISTEN/NOTIFY versus encoding conversion

2010-02-14 Thread Tom Lane
There's been a lot of thrashing about whether LISTEN/NOTIFY should restrict payload strings to 7-bit ASCII to avoid possible encoding conversion failures. I was on the side of yes but I'm having second thoughts about it. The point I had failed to think about is that we already restrict notifies