David G Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: > Tom Lane-2 wrote >> 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. I don't think it's too late to change this in 9.4. The discussion was about whether to back-patch. 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