The bytea type seems to be liable to character set conversions to the
effect that it falsifies the stored data.

Example:  Create a cluster with non-C CTYPE, create a LATIN1 database,
create a table with a bytea column, and store something with non-ASCII
characters in it.  Then change the client encoding (to UNICODE, say) and
read the data.  I stored 'ätsch bätsch' and got 'Ã€tsch bÃ€tsch', which is
not a suitable result for bytea data.

The bytea output function uses isprint() to determine which characters not
to escape, which fails to give at least the documented results in most
locales.  In general, the only safe solution would be to escape *all* byte
values on output.  Then the client can reconstruct the byte sequence based
on the character entities in the delivered string and does not have to
rely on the character codes staying the same during the conversion.
(Alternatively, we do not pass bytea values through the character set
conversion, but that might be unfeasible for other reasons.)

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net


Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:45:11 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Bytea misconceptions
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> In general, the only safe solution would be to escape *all* byte
> values on output.  Then the client can reconstruct the byte sequence based
> on the character entities in the delivered string and does not have to
> rely on the character codes staying the same during the conversion.

Seems like this brings us back to using hex for bytea, ala BLOB in 
SQL99. What would be the implications of changing byteain and byteaout 
to use X'FFFFFF' instead of '\377\377\377'?

I guess backward compatibility is a big problem. Maybe make it 
configurable: all octal escaped or all hex. Is it better to create a 
completely new datatype?

Joe



Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:47:10 -0800
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Re: Bytea misconceptions
Peter Eisentraut writes:

> Example:  Create a cluster with non-C CTYPE, create a LATIN1 database,
> create a table with a bytea column, and store something with non-ASCII
> characters in it.  Then change the client encoding (to UNICODE, say) and
> read the data.  I stored 'ätsch bätsch' and got 'Ã€tsch bÃ€tsch', which is
> not a suitable result for bytea data.

Another point that occured to me is that if you send bytea input that does
not exclusively contain escape sequences to the server, then you really
don't know what the server will store.  Since character set conversion is
supposed to be transparent, the bytea type is broken from the ground up
and should be replaced (probably by the standard blob type).

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net


Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:58:33 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Bytea misconceptions