From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Application name patch - v3 |
Date: | 2009-11-26 00:07:59 |
Message-ID: | 200911260108.00151.andres@anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday 25 November 2009 23:01:35 Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >> One more question: Per my reading of the discussion (which very well
> >> might be flawed), wasnt the plan to limit the availale characters in the
> >> application name to ascii?
> > That was suggested, but I thought the eventual outcome was to not bother.
> I think that's really essential, not optional. The proposed patch will
> transfer the application name from one backend to another without any
> encoding conversion. If it contains non-ASCII characters that will
> result in injection of badly-encoded data inside the backend, which is
> something we have been trying hard to avoid in recent versions.
Isn't that similarly the case with pg_stat_activity?
> ISTM restricting the name to ASCII-only is the most reasonable tradeoff.
> Of course, as a speaker of English I may be a bit biased here --- but
> doing nothing about the issue doesn't seem acceptable.
I actually having a hard time imaging a use case where this would be a real
problem...
I have to admit though that while I am not from a English speaking country but
from Germany the amount of non ASCII chars used there routinely is not that
big, so ...
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-26 00:29:24 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-25 23:59:43 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |