Re: [HACKERS] UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding

2011-02-19 Thread Bruce Momjian
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

Re: [HACKERS] UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding

2010-09-08 Thread Marko Kreen
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

Re: [HACKERS] UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding

2010-09-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [HACKERS] UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding

2010-09-08 Thread Marko Kreen
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

Re: [HACKERS] UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding

2010-09-08 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding

2010-09-08 Thread Marko Kreen
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

Re: [HACKERS] UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding

2010-09-07 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [HACKERS] UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding

2010-08-23 Thread Florian Weimer
* 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

Re: [HACKERS] UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding

2010-08-23 Thread Marko Kreen
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

[HACKERS] UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding

2010-08-22 Thread 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 the security

Re: [HACKERS] UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding

2010-08-22 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [HACKERS] UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding

2010-08-22 Thread Tom Lane
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