Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I've committed this, after a good deal of hacking on the comments,
> some coding style cleanup, and one bug fix:
Ummm ... why do the incrementer functions think they need to restore the
previous value on failure? AFAICS that's a waste of code and cycles,
since there is only one caller and it doesn't care in the least.
I'm also quite distressed that you ignored my advice to limit the number
of combinations tried. This patch could be horribly slow when dealing
with wide characters, eg think what will happen when starting from
U+10000.
regards, tom lane