Ok, that's bad. I've also read crypt.c and md5.c.
And what a nightmare is C compared to Java (granted, there's a difference in
age of more than 20 years).
My guess is that since the char type is one byte long, all char *
expressions are actually pointers to array of bytes which are transmitted
I'm not a developper, but it occured to me that you should consider dropping
the support for client-server wire protocol v2.
I quote a comment I found in JDBC driver's code:
// NOTE: To simplify this code, it is assumed that if we are
// using the V3 protocol, then the database
On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Gregory Stark wrote:
This tells me that the v3 protocol appeared at 7.4, so there's no need to
support v2 in future database versions (starting with 8.3?). It would
simplify code in interfaces like JDBC too.
I think the second half of this is correct. There
Martijn,
:) don't take it personal, I am just trying to obtain confirmation that I
understood well the problem. Afterall, it's just that C has a very outdated
notion of chars (and no notion of Unicode). I was naively under the
impression that chars have evolved in nowadays C.
Regarding the
On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Trevor Talbot wrote:
I'm not entirely sure how that's supposed to solve the client
authentication issue though. Demanding that clients present auth data
in UTF-8 is no different than demanding they present it in the
encoding it was entered in originally...
Oh
On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Martijn,
:) don't take it personal, I am just trying to obtain confirmation that I
understood well the problem. Afterall, it's just that C has a very
outdated notion of chars (and no notion of Unicode). I
Hi all.
I have read the documentation, searched the mailing lists and inspected the
code JDBC driver code. I do need to address this question to actual
developers.
Simply put, what is the client encoding that the server assumes BEFORE the
client connection is established, that is, during the
On Tuesday 27 November 2007, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
I was under the impression that the username/password, had no encoding,
they are Just a Bunch of Bits, i.e. byte[].
I cannot agree to that, simply because Postgres supports (or at least claims
to) multi-byte characters. And user names,
