Guys, surely some one's done this before? I've tried using
PQescapeBytea too, but still get (slightly) different output. If I try
and insert "\x02\x01\x02\x03\x04hello\x05\x64\x99\x45" I get (int
values of chars printed):

INSERT: 2   1   2   3   4 104 101 108 108 111   5 100 -103  69
SELECT: 2   1   2   3   4 104 101 108 108 111   5 100   92  50  51  49  69

hoping someone has a quick answer... if not I'll post a full source
example and look into it more...

Thanks, L.

Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:37:46 +0100
Lee Kindness <lkindness@csl.co.uk>
ECPG and bytea
Lee Kindness wrote:
> Guys, surely some one's done this before? I've tried using
> PQescapeBytea too, but still get (slightly) different output. If I try
> and insert "\x02\x01\x02\x03\x04hello\x05\x64\x99\x45" I get (int
> values of chars printed):
> 
> INSERT: 2   1   2   3   4 104 101 108 108 111   5 100 -103  69
> SELECT: 2   1   2   3   4 104 101 108 108 111   5 100   92  50  51  49  69
> 
> hoping someone has a quick answer... if not I'll post a full source
> example and look into it more...
> 

I don't know much about ecpg, but here are some thoughts:

regression=# select x'99'::int;
  int4
------
   153
(1 row)

regression=# select chr(-103) = chr(153);
  ?column?
----------
  t
(1 row)

So the insert looks correct but affected by signed vs unsigned char somehow.

As far as the select goes, I'm wondering if your database is using UTF8 
encoding or something like that. That would explain a high bit character 
getting converted to 4 bytes, I think.

HTH,

Joe



Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:04:18 -0700
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Re: [HACKERS] ECPG and bytea