* Florian Pflug:
On Nov24, 2011, at 10:54 , Florian Weimer wrote:
Or is it not only about being able to *store* NULs in a text field?
No, the entire core should be NUL-transparent.
That's unlikely to happen.
Yes, with the type input/output functions tied to NUL-terminated
strings, that
Hello
2011/11/24 Florian Weimer fwei...@bfk.de:
Occasionally, we get bitten by embedded NUL bytes in TEXT values. We
take care of generating proper UTF-8, but this additional restriction
sometimes slips by. It would be really helpful if PostgreSQL could
store such TEXT fields as-is (at
* Pavel Stehule:
Hello
2011/11/24 Florian Weimer fwei...@bfk.de:
Occasionally, we get bitten by embedded NUL bytes in TEXT values. We
take care of generating proper UTF-8, but this additional restriction
sometimes slips by. It would be really helpful if PostgreSQL could
store such TEXT
Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of Thu Nov 24 11:27:51 +0200 2011:
and why you don't use bytea ? Text should be correct literal.
It's actually UTF-8 text, and some PostgreSQL functions are only
available for TEXT, but not BYTEA, e.g.:
bfk_int= SELECT '\x006500'::bytea ~ 'A';
2011/11/24 Florian Weimer fwei...@bfk.de:
* Pavel Stehule:
Hello
2011/11/24 Florian Weimer fwei...@bfk.de:
Occasionally, we get bitten by embedded NUL bytes in TEXT values. We
take care of generating proper UTF-8, but this additional restriction
sometimes slips by. It would be really
* Alexander Shulgin:
It's actually UTF-8 text, and some PostgreSQL functions are only
available for TEXT, but not BYTEA, e.g.:
bfk_int= SELECT '\x006500'::bytea ~ 'A';
ERROR: operator does not exist: bytea ~ unknown
And how will those TEXT functions behave on a value with an embedded
2011/11/24 Florian Weimer fwei...@bfk.de:
* Alexander Shulgin:
It's actually UTF-8 text, and some PostgreSQL functions are only
available for TEXT, but not BYTEA, e.g.:
bfk_int= SELECT '\x006500'::bytea ~ 'A';
ERROR: operator does not exist: bytea ~ unknown
And how will those TEXT
* Pavel Stehule:
By the way, I refuse the notion that UTF-8 strings with embedded NULs
are broken. I can't recall any other system which enforces UTF-8
well-formedness, but does not permit embedded NULs.
I have a different question. What is reason for embedded NULs inside
strings?
The
Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of Thu Nov 24 12:59:09 +0200 2011:
I have a different question. What is reason for embedded NULs inside
strings?
The source system does not enforce that constraint, so from time to
time, such data slips through. I don't know why it's there in the
2011/11/24 Alexander Shulgin a...@commandprompt.com:
Excerpts from Florian Weimer's message of Thu Nov 24 12:59:09 +0200 2011:
I have a different question. What is reason for embedded NULs inside
strings?
The source system does not enforce that constraint, so from time to
time, such data
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Florian Weimer fwei...@bfk.de wrote:
By the way, I refuse the notion that UTF-8 strings with embedded NULs
are broken. I can't recall any other system which enforces UTF-8
well-formedness, but does not permit embedded NULs.
This seems like a key point. If
On Nov24, 2011, at 10:54 , Florian Weimer wrote:
Or is it not only about being able to *store* NULs in a text field?
No, the entire core should be NUL-transparent.
That's unlikely to happen. A more realistic approach would be to solve
this only for UTF-8 encoded strings by encoding the NUL
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Florian Weimer fwei...@bfk.de wrote:
By the way, I refuse the notion that UTF-8 strings with embedded NULs
are broken. I can't recall any other system which enforces UTF-8
well-formedness, but does not permit embedded NULs.
Refuse away, but I don't think
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Florian Weimer fwei...@bfk.de wrote:
By the way, I refuse the notion that UTF-8 strings with embedded NULs
are broken. I can't recall any other system which enforces UTF-8
well-formedness, but does not permit embedded
14 matches
Mail list logo
