Re: UTF16 surrogate pairs in UTF8 encoding

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On sn, 2010-08-22 at 14:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I just noticed that we are now advertising the ability to insert UTF16
>> surrogate pairs in strings and identifiers (see section 4.1.2.2 in
>> current docs, in particular). Is this really wise? I thought that
>> surrogate pairs were specifically prohibited in UTF8 strings, because
>> of the security hazards implicit in having more than one way to
>> represent the same code point.

> We combine the surrogate pair components to a single code point and
> encode that in UTF-8. We don't encode the components separately; that
> would be wrong.

Oh, OK. Should the docs make that a bit clearer?

regards, tom lane