Marko Kreen wrote: > 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.)
Applied, thanks. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
