Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > On sÃ¶n, 2010-08-22 at 14:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I just noticed that we are now advertising the ability to insert UTF16 >> surrogate pairs in strings and identifiers (see section 188.8.131.52 in >> current docs, in particular). Is this really wise? I thought that >> surrogate pairs were specifically prohibited in UTF8 strings, because >> of the security hazards implicit in having more than one way to >> represent the same code point.
> We combine the surrogate pair components to a single code point and > encode that in UTF-8. We don't encode the components separately; that > would be wrong. Oh, OK. Should the docs make that a bit clearer? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers