Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:=0A> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> =
writes:=0A>> It occurs to me that the behavior you are seeing would be=0A>>=
consistent with 945 being considered an uppercase letter, with=0A>> 60536 =
being considered its lowercase form.=A0 Normal PostgreSQL=0A>> case-folding=
of identifiers would then cause exactly the symptoms=0A>> you are seeing.=
=0A>=0A> Hmm ... identifier case-folding isn't really supposed to do anythi=
ng to=0A> multibyte characters.=A0 I wonder if this isn't a variant of the =
issue=0A> recently fixed in commit d535136b5d60b19f7ffa777b97ed301739c15a9d=
.=0A=0AMaybe.=A0 I notice that if you interpret the first byte as a Unicode=
=0Acode point (as opposed to the first byte of a UTF-8 encoded=0Acharacter)=
, it is an uppercase letter.=A0 But I can't quite see how=0Athat gets to th=
e decimal 60536 value.=A0 Also, going to a commit=0Aprior to the referenced=
fix I still don't see any problem on my=0Amachine.=A0 That doesn't rule ou=
t a platform-specific manifestation=0Aof the issue, though.=0A=0A--=0AKevin=
Grittner=0AEDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com=0AThe Enterprise PostgreSQL Co=
mpany
