Re: character_not_in_repertoire vs. untranslatable_character

Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)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