Hi,
In
"Re: confusing / inefficient "need_transcoding" handling in copy" on Mon, 16
Dec 2024 11:25:16 +0900,
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 04:46:57PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Note that using "test" as table name for the tes
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 04:46:57PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Note that using "test" as table name for the tests is not a good idea,
> as this could very likely conflict with some concurrent activity. I
> would also add two RESET queries to remove the dependency to
> client_encoding once the
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 12:27:37PM +0900, Sutou Kouhei wrote:
> Oh, sorry... I attached wrong patch...
> I attach the v4 patch that includes this case.
Sounds fair to me as a beginning for the code paths setting
need_transcoding.
Note that using "test" as table name for the tests is not a good id
Hi,
In
"Re: confusing / inefficient "need_transcoding" handling in copy" on Fri, 13
Dec 2024 12:03:45 +0900,
Michael Paquier wrote:
>> OK. I've added valid cases too by using LATIN1 as you
>> suggested.
>
> I may have missed something but v3
On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 03:25:41PM +0900, Sutou Kouhei wrote:
> In
> "Re: confusing / inefficient "need_transcoding" handling in copy" on Tue,
> 10 Dec 2024 13:59:25 +0900,
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Another one would be valid conversions back and
Hi,
In
"Re: confusing / inefficient "need_transcoding" handling in copy" on Tue, 10
Dec 2024 13:59:25 +0900,
Michael Paquier wrote:
> client_encoding would be used by COPY when not specifying ENCODING
> option. Perhaps more tests should be added with this
On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 04:20:42PM +0900, Sutou Kouhei wrote:
> (Do you think that this patch is still needed?)
This thread has fallen off my radar, my apologies about that.
Yes, I think that this is a good thing to expand these tests. Let's
take one step at a time. I have a couple of comments.
Hi Michael,
ping.
(Do you think that this patch is still needed?)
Thanks,
--
kou
In <20240214.114608.2091541942684063981@clear-code.com>
"Re: confusing / inefficient "need_transcoding" handling in copy" on Wed, 14
Feb 2024 11:46:08 +0900 (JST),
Sutou Kou
Hi,
In
"Re: confusing / inefficient "need_transcoding" handling in copy" on Wed, 14
Feb 2024 06:56:16 +0900,
Michael Paquier wrote:
> We have a couple of non-ASCII characters in the tests, but I suspect
> that this one will not be digested correctly everywhere,
On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 05:25:01PM +0900, Sutou Kouhei wrote:
> In <20240206222445.hzq22pb2nye7r...@awork3.anarazel.de>
> "Re: confusing / inefficient "need_transcoding" handling in copy" on Tue, 6
> Feb 2024 14:24:45 -0800,
> Andres Freund wrote:
>
Hi,
On 2024-02-09 09:36:28 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 10:25:07AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > There's no validation, just conversion. I'd suggest:
> >
> > "Set up encoding conversion info if the file and server encodings differ
> > (see also pg_server_to_any).
On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 10:25:07AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> There's no validation, just conversion. I'd suggest:
>
> "Set up encoding conversion info if the file and server encodings differ
> (see also pg_server_to_any)."
>
> Other than that, +1
Cool. I've used your wording and applie
On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 05:29:46PM +0900, Sutou Kouhei wrote:
> Oh, sorry. I missed the Michael's patch:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ZcR9Q9hJ8GedFSCd%40paquier.xyz#e73272b042a22befac7a95f7bcb4fb9a
>
> I withdraw my change.
No problem. Thanks for caring about that.
--
Michael
s
Hi,
In <20240208.172501.2177371292839763981@clear-code.com>
"Re: confusing / inefficient "need_transcoding" handling in copy" on Thu, 08
Feb 2024 17:25:01 +0900 (JST),
Sutou Kouhei wrote:
> How about the following to avoid needless transcoding?
Oh, sorry.
On 08/02/2024 09:05, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 02:24:45PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
I think the code is just very confusing - there actually *is* verification of
the encoding, it just happens at a different, earlier, layer, namely in
copyfromparse.c: CopyConvertBuf() which
Hi,
In <20240206222445.hzq22pb2nye7r...@awork3.anarazel.de>
"Re: confusing / inefficient "need_transcoding" handling in copy" on Tue, 6
Feb 2024 14:24:45 -0800,
Andres Freund wrote:
> One unfortunate issue: We don't have any tests verifying that COPY FR
On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 02:24:45PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think the code is just very confusing - there actually *is* verification of
> the encoding, it just happens at a different, earlier, layer, namely in
> copyfromparse.c: CopyConvertBuf() which says:
> /*
>* If the file
Hi,
On 2024-02-06 12:51:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 06:05:04PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> I haven't yet dug into the code history. One guess is that this should only
> >> have been set this way for COPY FROM.
>
> > Looking the git history,
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 06:05:04PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I haven't yet dug into the code history. One guess is that this should only
>> have been set this way for COPY FROM.
> Looking the git history, this looks like an oversight of c61a2f58418e
> that has added
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 06:05:04PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't really understand why we need to validate anything during COPY TO?
> Which is good, because it turns out that we don't actually validate anything,
> as pg_server_to_any() returns without doing anything if the encoding matches:
20 matches
Mail list logo
