Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Chapman Flack <c...@anastigmatix.net> wrote: >> What I would have expected would be to allow <Unicode escape value>s >> for any Unicode codepoint that's representable in the server encoding, >> whatever encoding that is.
> I don't know anything for sure here, but I wonder if it would make > validating string literals in non-UTF8 encodings significant more > costly. I think it would, and it would likely also require function calls to loadable functions (at least given the current design whereby encoding conversions are farmed out to loadable libraries). I do not especially want the lexer doing that; it will open all sorts of fun questions involving what we can lex in an already-failed transaction. It may well be that these issues are surmountable with some sweat, but it doesn't sound like an easy patch to me. And how big is the use-case, really? 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