On sön, 2012-01-22 at 11:43 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Actually, given recent discussion I think that test should just be > removed from json.c. We don't actually have any test that the code > point is valid (e.g. that it doesn't refer to an unallocated code > point). We don't do that elsewhere either - the unicode_to_utf8() > function the scanner uses to turn \unnnn escapes into utf8 doesn't > look for unallocated code points. I'm not sure how much other > validation we should do - for example on correct use of surrogate > pairs.
We do check the correctness of surrogate pairs elsewhere. Search for "surrogate" in scan.l; should be easy to copy. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
