| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Rosckes <dave(dot)rosckes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Surrogate pairs in UTF-8 |
| Date: | 2015-01-18 18:03:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20150118180315.GB25809@svana.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 08:16:47AM -0600, Dave Rosckes wrote:
> I have written a test program using postgres that creates a string with a
> surrogate pair. I then insert that string into a varchar property in a
> table.
>
> I then execute a select statement to pull the string out. But when I
> evaluate the string the lead char of the pair is correct, but the following
> pair value is mangled. I run this exact same code using DB2 and it works
> just fine.
>
> Is this a postgres limitation, or is there a specific way surrogate pairs
> need to be handled?
Sounds odd. Can you provide actual queries showing the problem (and
server version).
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he does
> not attach much importance to his own thoughts.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2015-01-18 18:06:36 | Re: Alternatives to a unique indexes with NULL |
| Previous Message | Ian Barwick | 2015-01-18 14:40:41 | Re: PG user group in the Kuala Lumpur area? |