Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> I do agree with Peter's concerns about limiting the character set of the >> name string, and maybe there should be some sort of length limit too.
> I was thinking we might just declare it of type 'name'.. 'name' wouldn't help, since it's pretty character-set-agnostic. Anyway this is a GUC not a table column. Thinking about it more, it should be sufficient if we can ensure that the value is in the database encoding; logging of statements will already cause pretty much any legal DB-encoded string to be written to the log, so if you have a problem with that then you've already got a problem to fix. This is no issue for an ordinary SET, but AFAIR we do not have a good story for handling non-ASCII stuff arriving within the initial connection request packet. It might be time to try to do something about that. Or we could just restrict those values to ASCII. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers