Tom Lane-2 wrote > Noah Misch < > noah@
> > writes: >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:05:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I think this probably means we need to change chr() to reject code >>> points >>> above 10ffff. Should we back-patch that, or just do it in HEAD? > >> The compatibility risks resemble those associated with the fixes for bug >> #9210, so I recommend HEAD only: > >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ > 20140220043940.GA3064539@.leadboat > > While I'd be willing to ignore that risk so far as code points above > 10ffff go, if we want pg_utf8_islegal to be happy then we will also > have to reject surrogate-pair code points. It's not beyond the realm > of possibility that somebody is intentionally generating such code > points with chr(), despite the dump/reload hazard. So now I agree > that this is sounding more like a major-version-only behavioral change. I would tend to agree on principle - though since this does fall in a grey-area does 9.4 qualify for this bug-fix. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/chr-is-still-too-loose-about-UTF8-code-points-tp5804232p5804270.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
