On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Oliver Jowett wrote:
> > I used the same Encoding.AUTHENTICATION_PHASE_ENCODING in all places for
> > consistency and it doesn't harm in any way, since I make sure it is an
> > ASCII extension.
>
> Ok, so this is an unnecessary change that we can discard?
Oliver, for the third time, what happens in UnixCrypt is completely wrong in a
non-ASCII environment. The crypt() methods try to mimic an OS function that
executes on the server-side based on a password encoded in an encoding that
is HIGHLY probably different from UTF-16, which is used by Java.
The whole idea needs to be reconsidered. Make sure you read again my quote
above.
If you're so cautious with your disk space on the CVS server, then yes, by all
means, you can discard the changes made at lines 293 and 302 in
org.postgresql.core.v3.ConnectionFactoryImpl.
> I actually think this patch as a whole is a lost cause (unfortunately,
> more because you seem to be unwilling to take feedback on it than any
> inherent problem).
You might want to rephrase that, it doesn't look like English... (rhetorical)
> Would a patch that did only UTF-8 encoding, as
> suggested by Kris, handle the cases you need?
No, it wouldn't. Nor am I keen on having my patch included in the main source
tree.
On the other hand it would be very helpful if you didn't waste my time on
sterile discussions over marginal things. Please read the other posts in this
thread and discover what the truely important issues are.
Thanks.