On sön, 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.
