Re: invalidly encoded strings

Tom Lane wrote:
> OK.  Looking back, there was also some mention of changing chr's
> argument to bigint, but I'd counsel against doing that.  We should not
> need it since we only support 4-byte UTF8, hence code points only up to
> 21 bits (and indeed even 6-byte UTF8 can only have 31-bit code points,
> no?).
>
>
>   

Yes, that was a thinko on my part. I realised that yesterday.

cheers

andrew