Marko Kreen wrote:
On 9/8/10, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com writes:
Although it does seem unnecessary.
The reason I asked for this to be spelled out is that ordinarily,
a backslash escape \nnn is a very low-level thing that will insert
exactly
On 9/7/10, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On sön, 2010-08-22 at 15:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
We combine the surrogate pair components to a single code point and
encode that in UTF-8. We don't encode the components separately;
that
would be wrong.
Oh, OK. Should the
On ons, 2010-09-08 at 10:18 +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
On 9/7/10, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On sön, 2010-08-22 at 15:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
We combine the surrogate pair components to a single code point and
encode that in UTF-8. We don't encode the components
On 9/8/10, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On ons, 2010-09-08 at 10:18 +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
On 9/7/10, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On sön, 2010-08-22 at 15:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
We combine the surrogate pair components to a single code point and
Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com writes:
Although it does seem unnecessary.
The reason I asked for this to be spelled out is that ordinarily,
a backslash escape \nnn is a very low-level thing that will insert
exactly what you say. To me it's quite unexpected that the system
would editorialize on
On 9/8/10, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Marko Kreen mark...@gmail.com writes:
Although it does seem unnecessary.
The reason I asked for this to be spelled out is that ordinarily,
a backslash escape \nnn is a very low-level thing that will insert
exactly what you say. To me it's
On sön, 2010-08-22 at 15:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
We combine the surrogate pair components to a single code point and
encode that in UTF-8. We don't encode the components separately;
that
would be wrong.
Oh, OK. Should the docs make that a bit clearer?
Done.
--
Sent via
* Tom Lane:
I just noticed that we are now advertising the ability to insert UTF16
surrogate pairs in strings and identifiers (see section 4.1.2.2 in
current docs, in particular). Is this really wise? I thought that
surrogate pairs were specifically prohibited in UTF8 strings, because
of
On 8/22/10, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On sön, 2010-08-22 at 14:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I just noticed that we are now advertising the ability to insert UTF16
surrogate pairs in strings and identifiers (see section 4.1.2.2 in
current docs, in particular). Is this really
On sön, 2010-08-22 at 14:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I just noticed that we are now advertising the ability to insert UTF16
surrogate pairs in strings and identifiers (see section 4.1.2.2 in
current docs, in particular). Is this really wise? I thought that
surrogate pairs were specifically
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On sön, 2010-08-22 at 14:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I just noticed that we are now advertising the ability to insert UTF16
surrogate pairs in strings and identifiers (see section 4.1.2.2 in
current docs, in particular). Is this really wise? I thought
11 matches
Mail list logo
