Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com> writes:
> On 2005-04-10, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The impression I get is that most of the 'Unicode characters above
>> 0x10000' reports we've seen did not come from people who actually needed
>> more-than-16-bit Unicode codepoints, but from people who had screwed up
>> their encoding settings and were trying to tell the backend that Latin1
>> was Unicode or some such.
> I think you will find that this impression is actually false. Or that at
> the very least, _correct_ verification of UTF-8 sequences will still
> catch essentially all cases of non-utf-8 input mislabelled as utf-8
> while allowing the full range of Unicode codepoints.
Yeah? Cool. Does John's proposed patch do it "correctly"?
http://candle.pha.pa.us/mhonarc/patches2/msg00076.html
regards, tom lane