On Wednesday 25 November 2009 23:01:35 Tom Lane wrote: > Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> writes: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
