Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > I prefer the encoding scheme myself. I don't see the point of the > error.
Yeah, if we don't want to skip such files, then storing them using
a base64-encoded name (with a different key than regular names)
seems plausible. But I don't really see why we'd go to that much
trouble, nor why we'd think it's likely that tools would correctly
handle a case that is going to have 0.00% usage in the field.
regards, tom lane
