Re: [HACKERS] String encoding during connection "handshake"

2007-11-28 Thread sulfinu
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 outdated notion of "char"s (and no notion

Re: [HACKERS] String encoding during connection "handshake"

2007-11-28 Thread sulfinu
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

Re: [HACKERS] String encoding during connection "handshake"

2007-11-28 Thread sulfinu
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 Afterall, it's just that C has a very outdated notion of "char"s (and no notion of Unicode). I was naively under the impression that "char"s have evolved in nowadays C. Regarding the

Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today

2007-11-28 Thread sulfinu
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.

Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today

2007-11-28 Thread sulfinu
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 i

Re: [HACKERS] String encoding during connection "handshake"

2007-11-28 Thread sulfinu
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 transmitt

Re: [HACKERS] String encoding during connection "handshake"

2007-11-27 Thread sulfinu
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

[HACKERS] String encoding during connection "handshake"

2007-11-27 Thread sulfinu
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 a