Tom Lane-2 wrote
> Noah Misch <
> > 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
>>> 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:
> 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.
I would tend to agree on principle - though since this does fall in a
grey-area does 9.4 qualify for this bug-fix.
View this message in context:
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: