Tom Lane-2 wrote
> Noah Misch <

> noah@

> > 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:

> 20140220043940.GA3064539@.leadboat

> 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.

David J.

View this message in context:
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to