Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> One more question: Per my reading of the discussion (which very well might be
>> flawed), wasnt the plan to limit the availale characters in the application
>> name to ascii?
> That was suggested, but I thought the eventual outcome was to not bother.
I think that's really essential, not optional. The proposed patch will
transfer the application name from one backend to another without any
encoding conversion. If it contains non-ASCII characters that will
result in injection of badly-encoded data inside the backend, which is
something we have been trying hard to avoid in recent versions.
The only other thing you could do about this would be to try to convert
the data from the source backend's encoding to the target's. Which
would lead to assorted failure scenarios when no conversion is possible.
ISTM restricting the name to ASCII-only is the most reasonable tradeoff.
Of course, as a speaker of English I may be a bit biased here --- but
doing nothing about the issue doesn't seem acceptable.
regards, tom lane