Chapman Flack <c...@anastigmatix.net> writes: > So there's an ISO error 22021 "character not in repertoire" and > a PostgreSQL error 22P05 "untranslatable character" that seem > very similar.
> If I look in backend/utils/mb/wchar.c, it looks as if PostgreSQL > uses the first for the case of a corrupted encoding (bytes that > can't be decoded to a character at all), and the second for the > case of a valid character that isn't available in a conversion's > destination encoding. Yeah, that's the intended distinction I believe, though I would not want to swear that we've been 100% consistent. 22021 means "this character is bad in isolation", AFAICT, so it didn't seem appropriate for the conversion scenario. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers