From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: %d in log_line_prefix doesn't work for bg/autovacuum workers |
Date: | 2014-05-16 18:51:01 |
Message-ID: | 19222.1400266261@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-05-16 14:02:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not directly related to your gripe, but: where did this "padding" logic
>> come from, and what prevents it from creating invalidly-encoded output by
>> means of truncating multibyte characters in the middle?
> Isn't that syntax just the *minimal* width?
Ah, you're right, so sprintf shouldn't attempt to truncate the data
anywhere. Nonetheless, this has created a hazard that wasn't there
before: with any padding spec, sprintf has to determine the
width-in-characters of the supplied string. If glibc thinks the data
is invalid according to *its* idea of the prevailing encoding, it will
do something we won't like. My recollection is it refuses to print
anything at all.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-16 18:53:07 | Re: chr() is still too loose about UTF8 code points |
Previous Message | David G Johnston | 2014-05-16 18:07:47 | Re: chr() is still too loose about UTF8 code points |