Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> The code I've written so far does no canonicalization of the input
> value of any kind, just as we do for XML.
Fair enough.
> So, given that framework, what the patch does is this: if you're using
> UTF-8, then \uXXXX is accepted, provided that XXXX is something that
> equates to a legal Unicode code point. It isn't converted to the
> corresponding character: it's just validated. If you're NOT using
> UTF-8, then it allows \uXXXX for code points up through 127 (which we
> assume are the same in all encodings) and anything higher than that is
> rejected.
This seems a bit silly. If you're going to leave the escape sequence as
ASCII, then why not just validate that it names a legal Unicode code
point and be done? There is no reason whatever that that behavior needs
to depend on the database encoding.
regards, tom lane