The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 3819
Logged by: Franklin Schmidt
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.2
Operating system: XP & Linux
Description:UTF8 can't handle \000
Details:
Trying to store \000 in a text field with UTF8
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 3820
Logged by: Sergey
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.3.beta4
Operating system: Windows Vista x64
Description:auto-installer-failed
Details:
I have 8.2 version work and running, also I
Franklin Schmidt wrote:
>
> The following bug has been logged online:
>
> Bug reference: 3819
> Logged by: Franklin Schmidt
> Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> PostgreSQL version: 8.2
> Operating system: XP & Linux
> Description:UTF8 can't handle \000
> Details:
>
Franklin Schmidt wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2007 12:54 AM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Uh, as far as I know 0x00 is not a valid UTF8 byte value.
>
>
> I think it is a valid value. RFC 3629 says:
>
> "Character numbers from U+ to U+007F (US-ASCII repertoire)
> correspond to oct
On Dec 17, 2007 12:54 AM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Uh, as far as I know 0x00 is not a valid UTF8 byte value.
I think it is a valid value. RFC 3629 says:
"Character numbers from U+ to U+007F (US-ASCII repertoire)
correspond to octets 00 to 7F (7 bit US-ASCII values)."
ht
On Dec 17, 2007 1:28 AM, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, I realize 0x00 is a valid ASCII value and therefore a valid UTF8
> value but we have never had anyone complain they can't store the 0x00
> character because it doesn't mean anything in ASCII. They use bytea to
> store bina
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 3821
Logged by: Ronny Hellgren
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.2
Operating system: Windows XP
Description:Wrong language at "Installation Notes"
Details:
When I am trying to install Post
Franklin Schmidt wrote:
I agree that storing 0x00 in a UTF8 string is weird, but I am
converting a huge database to postgres, and in a huge database, weird
things happen. Using bytea for a text field just because one in a
million records has a 0x00 doesn't make sense to me. I did hack
around it
Hi, I found this bug? In beta 3. I am not a Linux guru so installing any
betas in Debian is very painful for me. Perhaps you could check to see if
it is still there in beta 4??
Last time I reported a bug
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2007-11/msg00584.php
I did not get any d
"chris wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, I found this bug? In beta 3. I am not a Linux guru so installing any
> betas in Debian is very painful for me. Perhaps you could check to see if
> it is still there in beta 4??
I see no bug here. You're invoking a set-returning function from a
PERF
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 3822
Logged by: Pedro Gimeno
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.2.5
Operating system: Any
Description:Nonstandard precedence for comparison operators
Details:
The operators <>, <= and >= ar
Hi,
Le Monday 17 December 2007 19:05:36 chris wood, vous avez écrit :
> Hi, I found this bug? In beta 3. I am not a Linux guru so installing any
> betas in Debian is very painful for me. Perhaps you could check to see if
> it is still there in beta 4??
The experimental sources of debian already
12 matches
Mail list logo