From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Onder Kalaci <onder(at)citusdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend |
Date: | 2018-08-12 05:42:50 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRD=EL--HVY_a4-pFqr0U5UBRNOnVEGom2cSRvZs0+9L6Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2018-08-12 0:17 GMT+02:00 Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>:
> > On 6 Aug 2018, at 09:47, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> >
> > Has there been any consideration to encodings?
>
> Thats a good point, no =/
>
> > What happens if the message contains non-ASCII characters, and the
> sending backend is connected to database that uses a different encoding
> than the backend being signaled?
>
> In the current state of the patch, instead of the message you get:
>
> FATAL: character with byte sequence 0xe3 0x82 0xbd in encoding "UTF8"
> has
> no equivalent in encoding “ISO_8859_5"
>
Where this code fails? Isn't somewhere upper where string literals are
translated? Then this message is ok.
>
> Thats clearly not good enough, but I’m not entirely sure what would be the
> best
> way forward. Restrict messages to only be in SQL_ASCII? Store the
> encoding of
> the message and check the encoding of the receiving backend before issuing
> it
> for a valid conversion, falling back to no message in case there is none?
> Neither seems terribly appealing, do you have any better suggestions?
>
The client<->server encoding translation should do this work no?
Regards
Pavel
> cheers ./daniel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2018-08-12 06:26:15 | Re: libpq should not look up all host addresses at once |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-08-12 05:35:33 | Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables |