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

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: psql blows up on BOM character sequence
Date
Msg-id DAE51FA3-A74A-482E-B617-81C542EB3628@justatheory.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: psql blows up on BOM character sequence  (Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>)
Responses Re: psql blows up on BOM character sequence  (Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mar 23, 2014, at 8:03, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:

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 is converted 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.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Useless "Replica Identity: NOTHING" noise from psql \d
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: jsonb and nested hstore