Re: [HACKERS] is there a deep unyielding reason to limit U&'' literals to ASCII?

Robert Haas writes: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Chapman Flack wrote: >> What I would have expected would be to allow s >> for any Unicode codepoint that's representable in the server encoding, >> whatever encoding that is. > I don't know

Re: [HACKERS] is there a deep unyielding reason to limit U&'' literals to ASCII?

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Chapman Flack wrote: > I see in the documentation (and confirm in practice) that a > Unicode character string literal U&'...' is only allowed to have > s representing Unicode characters if the > server encoding is, exactly and only, UTF8. >

[HACKERS] is there a deep unyielding reason to limit U&'' literals to ASCII?

I see in the documentation (and confirm in practice) that a Unicode character string literal U&'...' is only allowed to have s representing Unicode characters if the server encoding is, exactly and only, UTF8. Otherwise, it can still have s, but they can only be in the range \+01 to \+7f