David G Johnston <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Lane-2 wrote
>> 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.
I don't think it's too late to change this in 9.4. The discussion was
about whether to back-patch.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
