Tom Lane-2 wrote
> Noah Misch <
> noah@
> > writes:
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:05:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think this probably means we need to change chr() to reject code
>>> points
>>> above 10ffff. Should we back-patch that, or just do it in HEAD?
>
>> The compatibility risks resemble those associated with the fixes for bug
>> #9210, so I recommend HEAD only:
>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/
> 20140220043940.GA3064539@.leadboat
>
> 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.
David J.
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/chr-is-still-too-loose-about-UTF8-code-points-tp5804232p5804270.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.