Re: [UDD] Role of different upstream status tables (upstream versus dehs)
On 27/05/15 at 22:22 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 06:41:34PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd consider the implementation of status as ENUM more performant than
> > > a plain text. Am I missing something?
> >
> > status is returned by uscan. I did not want to write in stone the list
> > of possible statuses returned by uscan.
>
> Well, there are things written in stone that are more in flux than these
> but I have no interest to discuss this here.
>
> What I'm a bit more concerned about is that the UDD dump has problems
> to import exactly this table. I just downloaded a fresh dump and the
> log says:
>
> FEHLER: ungültige Byte-Sequenz für Kodierung „UTF8“: 0x99
> CONTEXT: COPY upstream, Zeile 235
> FEHLER: ungültige Byte-Sequenz für Kodierung „UTF8“: 0xf6 0x6c 0x6c 0xe4
> CONTEXT: COPY upstream_status, Zeile 8680
>
> Sorry for German locale - may be this is even the source of the problem???
> It somehow says "invalid byte sequence for UTF encoding". I would
> ***really*** love to know how to revert the German postresql locale. :-(
>
> Anyway I tried to reimport the table but got:
I use scripts/recreate-db to re-import a dump on my dev machine. it
works. maybe you are missing a step.
Lucas
Reply to: