Tom Lane wrote:
> "John Hansen" <john@geeknet.com.au> writes:
> >> That is backpatched to 8.0.X. Does that not fix the problem reported?
>
> > No, as andrew said, what this patch does, is allow values > 0xffff and
> > at the same time validates the input to make sure it's valid utf8.
>
> The impression I get is that most of the 'Unicode characters above
> 0x10000' reports we've seen did not come from people who actually needed
> more-than-16-bit Unicode codepoints, but from people who had screwed up
> their encoding settings and were trying to tell the backend that Latin1
> was Unicode or some such. So I'm a bit worried that extending the
> backend support to full 32-bit Unicode will do more to mask encoding
> mistakes than it will do to create needed functionality.
Yes, that was my impression too.
The upper/lower/initcap issue was that some operating systems were
testing unicode values even if the local was set to C. That is fixed in
8.0.2, but I now see this is a different problem.
> Not that I'm against adding the functionality. I'm just doubtful that
> the reports we've seen really indicate that we need it, or that adding
> it will cut down on the incidence of complaints :-(
Yea, that was my question too. I figured Japan or Chinese would be
using these longer values, and if they are fine, why are others having
problems. It would be great to find a test case that actually shows the
failure.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
