Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net> writes:
> On 07/24/19 03:45, John Naylor wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 3:14 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> However, my second reaction was that maybe you were on to something
>>> upthread when you speculated about postponing de-escaping of
>>> Unicode literals into the grammar. If we did it like that then
> With the de-escaping postponed, I think we'd be able to move beyond the
> current odd situation where Unicode escapes can't describe non-ascii
> characters, in exactly and only the cases where you need them to.
How so? The grammar doesn't really have any more context information
than the lexer does. (In both cases, it would be ugly but not really
invalid for the transformation to depend on the database encoding,
I think.)
regards, tom lane