Re: psql blows up on BOM character sequence - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tatsuo Ishii
Subject Re: psql blows up on BOM character sequence
Date
Msg-id 20140325.092406.721441529421910259.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: psql blows up on BOM character sequence  ("David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
>> Just a quick comment on this. Yes, pgAdmin always added a BOM in every
>> SQL files it wrote.
> 
> From http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2223882/whats-different-between-utf-8-and-utf-8-without-bom:
> 
> According to the Unicode standard, the BOM for UTF-8 files is not recommended:
> 
> 2.6 Encoding Schemes
> 
> ... Use of a BOM is neither required nor recommended for UTF-8, but may be encountered in contexts where UTF-8 data
isconverted from other encoding forms that use a BOM or where the BOM is used as a UTF-8 signature. See the “Byte Order
Mark”subsection in Section 16.8, Specials, for more information.
 

Right. I think unconditionally adding BOM to a file is evil.

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Only first XLogRecData is visible to rm_desc with WAL_DEBUG
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: About adding an attribute to pg_attibute