From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: chr() is still too loose about UTF8 code points |
Date: | 2014-05-16 18:53:07 |
Message-ID: | 19277.1400266387@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane-2 wrote
>> While I'd be willing to ignore that risk so far as code points above
>> 10ffff go, if we want pg_utf8_islegal to be happy then we will also
>> have to reject surrogate-pair code points. It's not beyond the realm
>> of possibility that somebody is intentionally generating such code
>> points with chr(), despite the dump/reload hazard. So now I agree
>> that this is sounding more like a major-version-only behavioral change.
> I would tend to agree on principle - though since this does fall in a
> grey-area does 9.4 qualify for this bug-fix.
I don't think it's too late to change this in 9.4. The discussion was
about whether to back-patch.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-16 19:13:06 | Re: %d in log_line_prefix doesn't work for bg/autovacuum workers |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-16 18:51:01 | Re: %d in log_line_prefix doesn't work for bg/autovacuum workers |