[ This email to hackers from last night got lost so I am remailing.]
Tom Lane wrote:
> "John Hansen" <> 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.
> 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 :-(
OK, I got on the IRC server and talked to folks who actually understand
this. They say there are Chinese who are reporting this problem, so I
Googled and found this:
See the paragraph with "Supplementary Ideographic Plane". You will see
that paragraph says:
The Supplementary Ideographic Plane (SIP) currently contains 42,711additional characters in "CJK Unified Ideographs
ExtensionB"(U+20000-2A6D6). The PDF chart for this is available at:http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U20000.pdf
I assume it is that U+20000-2A6D6 range that people are complaining
So, we do have a bug, and we are probably going to need to fix it in
I apologize to people who reported this problem and I wasn't attentive
to the seriousness of it.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,