Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:05:08AM -0400, 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?
> The compatibility risks resemble those associated with the fixes for bug > #9210, so I recommend HEAD only: > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20140220043940.ga3064...@tornado.leadboat.com While I'd be willing to ignore that risk so far as code points above 10ffff go, if we want pg_utf8_islegal to be happy then we will also have to reject surrogate-pair code points. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that somebody is intentionally generating such code points with chr(), despite the dump/reload hazard. So now I agree that this is sounding more like a major-version-only behavioral change. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
