Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 9/8/10, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Marko Kreen 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
On 9/8/10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Kreen 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 sys
Marko Kreen 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 that to the extent
On 9/8/10, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2010-09-08 at 10:18 +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> > On 9/7/10, Peter Eisentraut 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 U
On ons, 2010-09-08 at 10:18 +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 9/7/10, Peter Eisentraut 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;
On 9/7/10, Peter Eisentraut 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 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 pg
On 8/22/10, Peter Eisentraut 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 wise? I t
* 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
>
Peter Eisentraut 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 that
>> s
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
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 the security hazards
12 matches
Mail list logo
