Re: PQescapeBytea is not multibyte aware

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PQescapeBytea is not multibyte aware
Date: 2002-04-05 17:21:42
Message-ID: 3CADDD26.3010404@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:
>>INSERT INTO t1(bytea_col) VALUES('characters produced by
>>PQescapebytea'::bytea);
>
>
> Probably that would cause the error to disappear, but it's hardly a
> desirable answer.
>
> I wonder whether this says that TEXT is not a good implementation of
> type UNKNOWN. That choice was made on the assumption that TEXT would
> faithfully preserve the contents of a C string ... but it seems that in
> the multibyte world it ain't so. It would not be a huge amount of work
> to write a couple more I/O routines and give UNKNOWN its own I/O
> behavior.

I could take a look at this. Any guidance other than "faithfully
preserving the contents of a C string"?

>
> OTOH, I was surprised to read your message because I had assumed the
> damage was being done much further upstream, viz during collection of
> the query string by pq_getstr(). Do we need to think twice about that
> processing, as well?

I'll take a look at this as well.

Joe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ross J. Reedstrom 2002-04-05 17:23:26 Re: timeout implementation issues
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-04-05 16:55:17 Re: What's the CURRENT schema ?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-04-05 18:07:16 Re: PQescapeBytea is not multibyte aware
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-04-05 16:32:35 Re: PQescapeBytea is not multibyte aware