On 9/8/10, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Marko Kreen <mark...@gmail.com> writes: > > Although it does seem unnecessary. > > > The reason I asked for this to be spelled out is that ordinarily, > a backslash escape \nnn is a very low-level thing that will insert > exactly what you say. To me it's quite unexpected that the system > would editorialize on that to the extent of replacing two UTF16 > surrogate characters by a single code point. That's necessary for > correctness because our underlying storage is UTF8, but it's not > obvious that it will happen. (As a counterexample, if our underlying > storage were UTF16, then very different things would need to happen > for the exact same SQL input.) > > I think a lot of people will have this same question when reading > this para, which is why I asked for an explanation there.
Ok, but I still don't like the "when"s. How about: - 6-digit form technically makes this unnecessary. (When surrogate - pairs are used when the server encoding is <literal>UTF8</>, they - are first combined into a single code point that is then encoded - in UTF-8.) + 6-digit form technically makes this unnecessary. (Surrogate + pairs are not stored directly, but combined into a single + code point that is then encoded in UTF-8.) -- marko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
