"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> ISTM that one of the uses of this is to say "store the character
>> that corresponds to this Unicode code point in whatever the database
>> encoding is"
> I would think you're right. As long as the given character is in the
> user's character set, we should allow it. Presumably we've already
> confirmed that they have an encoding scheme which allows them to store
> everything in their character set.
This is a good way to get your patch rejected altogether. The lexer
is *not* allowed to invoke any database operations (such as
pg_conversion lookups) so it cannot perform arbitrary encoding
conversions.
If this sort of facility is what you want, the previously suggested
approach via a decode-like runtime function is a better fit.
regards, tom lane
