Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Hmm, is this what we had agreed? I'm not sure I like it; if I'm using
> chr() to produce characters, then the application is going to have to
> worry about server_encoding in order to find the correct parameter to
> pass to chr().
That's always been the case.
> What I thought was the idea is that chr() always gets an Unicode code
> point, and it converts the character to the server_encoding.
I think that would be too big a break from past practice --- the
operative word being "break", because in LATINn character sets chr/ascii
work just fine.
I wouldn't object to introducing some sort of unicode_chr/unicode_ascii
function pair that translates to/from Unicode code points regardless of
the DB encoding. But that smells way more like a new feature than
plugging a hole, so I suggest it should wait for 8.4.
regards, tom lane