From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: chr() is still too loose about UTF8 code points |
Date: | 2014-05-16 17:52:43 |
Message-ID: | 16802.1400262763@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> 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:
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.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-16 17:54:56 | %d in log_line_prefix doesn't work for bg/autovacuum workers |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2014-05-16 17:39:09 | Re: chr() is still too loose about UTF8 code points |