Re: PQescapeByteaConn - returns wrong string for PG9.1 Beta3 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Florian Pflug
Subject Re: PQescapeByteaConn - returns wrong string for PG9.1 Beta3
Date
Msg-id F3FDB41A-4352-4367-B905-0BB4546CB7E1@phlo.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PQescapeByteaConn - returns wrong string for PG9.1 Beta3  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Jul27, 2011, at 20:05 , Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Petro Meier's message of mié jul 27 02:51:22 -0400 2011:
>
>> If  I use PQescapeByteaConn() for a conenction to a PG9.1 Beta3 server,
>> this function returns (e.g.) "\xea2abd8ef31...(and so on.)...".
>>
>>        Here the problem: there should be a second backslash in the prefix.
>> The SQL Statement which uses this string (INSERT statement in my case)
>> returns with an error ("Invalid byte sequence..."). If I add the second
>> backslash manually everything works fine.
>
> You're just being bitten by the fact that the
> standard_conforming_strings setting changed its default from false to
> true.  If you want the old behavior, you can just flip the switch, but
> the recommended action is to change your expectations.  You can use E''
> if you want backslashes to continue working without changing the switch.

Hm, but PQescapeByteaConn() shouldn't produce a literal that the server
later rejects, no matter what standard_conforming_strings is set to.

It looks like PQescapeByteaConn() does the right thing here, though -
it doesn't escape the backslash in it's result when dealing with 9.1,
presumably because that server has wstandard_conforming_strings set to on.
But why then is the server rejecting the result?

The only way I can see that make that happend would be to prefix the
string returned by PQescapeByteaConn() with 'E'.

@OP: Could you post the code fragment that causes the error?

best regards,
Florian Pflug



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PQescapeByteaConn - returns wrong string for PG9.1 Beta3
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?