Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> writes:
> On 05/16/2014 06:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think this probably means we need to change chr() to reject code points
>> above 10ffff. Should we back-patch that, or just do it in HEAD?
> +1 for back-patching. A value that cannot be restored is bad, and I
> can't imagine any legitimate use case for producing a Unicode character
> larger than U+10FFFF with chr(x), when the rest of the system doesn't
> handle it. Fully supporting such values might be useful, but that's a
> different story.
Well, AFAICT "the rest of the system" does handle any code point up to
U+1FFFFF. It's only pg_utf8_islegal that's being picky. So another
possible answer is to weaken the check in pg_utf8_islegal. However,
that could create interoperability concerns with other software, and
as you say the use-case for larger values seems pretty thin.
Actually, after re-reading the spec there's more to it than this:
chr() will allow creating utf8 sequences that correspond to the
surrogate-pair codes, which are expressly disallowed in UTF8 by
the RFCs. Maybe we should apply pg_utf8_islegal to the result
string rather than duplicating its checks?
BTW, there are various places that have comments or ifdefd-out code
anticipating possible future support of 5- or 6-byte UTF8 sequences,
which were specified in RFC2279 but then rescinded by RFC3629.
I guess as a matter of cleanup we should think about removing that
regards, tom lane
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: