On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: >> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie ago 13 12:50:13 -0400 2010: >>> Oh, hey, look at that. Any thought on what to about the fact that our >>> two existing copies of utf2ucs() don't match? (one tests against 0xf8 >>> where the other against 0xf0) > >> I'm not sure why it's masking 0xf8 instead of 0xf0. > > Because it wants to verify that this is in fact a 4-byte UTF8 code. > Compare the code (and comments) for pg_utf_mblen. > > AFAICS the version in mbprint.c is flat out wrong, and the only reason > nobody's noticed is that it should never get passed a more-than-4-byte > sequence anyway.
Should we fix it, then, and if so how far should we go back? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
