| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Assert failure with ICU support |
| Date: | 2023-04-20 19:53:01 |
| Message-ID: | 3170490.1682020381@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2023-04-19 at 16:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> + if (c >= 0x100 || !iscalnum(c))
> I'm curious why you say >= 0x100 rather than >= 0x80?
Right, should be 0x80, my thinko.
> What's the purpose of the error? Is it to catch mistakes, or is it to
> reserve room for adding new escape sequences in the future?
As I read it, it's meant to leave room for defining more escapes.
If we allowed \x for any non-currently-defined "x" to just be "x",
then there would be a compatibility problem if we wanted to make
it mean something else. But I think it's sufficient to reserve
the ASCII letters for that purpose.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-04-20 22:02:42 | Re: BUG #17903: There is a bug in the KeepLogSeg() |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2023-04-20 19:47:21 | Re: Assert failure with ICU support |