On 09/26/2011 02:38 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On mån, 2011-09-26 at 13:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
The thing that makes me doubt that is this comment from Tatsuo Ishii:
TI> COPY explicitly specifies the encoding (to be UTF-8 in this case).
So
TI> I think we should not regard U+FEFF as "BOM" in COPY, rather we
should
TI> regard U+FEFF as "ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE".
If a BOM is confusable with valid data, then I think recognizing it
and discarding it unconditionally is no good - you could end up where
COPY OUT, TRUNCATE, COPY IN changes the table contents.
We did recently accept a patch for psql -f to skip over a UTF-8
byte-order mark. We had a lot of this same discussion there.
Yes, but wasn't part of the rationale that this was safe because a
leading BOM could not possibly be mistaken for anything else legitimate
in an SQL source file? That's quite different from a data file. ISTM.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
