On Jan 18, 2008, at 12:00 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> 0xEDA7A1 (UTF-8) corresponds to UNICODE code point 0xD9E1, which,
> when interpreted as a high surrogare and followed by a low surrogate,
> would correspond to the UTF-16 encoding of a code point
> between 0x88400 and 0x887FF (depending on the value of the low
> surrogate).
>
> These code points do not correspond to any valid character.
> So - unless there is a flaw in my reasoning - there's something
> fishy with these data anyway.
>
> Janine, could you give us a hex dump of that line from the copy
> statement?
Certainly. Do you want to see it as it came from the old database,
or after I ran it through iconv? Although iconv wasn't able to solve
this problem it did fix others in other tables; unfortunately I have
no way of knowing if it also mangled some data at the same time.
The version of iconv I have does know about UTF16 so I tried using
that as the "from" encoding instead of UTF8, but the result had new
errors in places where the original data was good, so that was
obviously a step backwards.
BTW, in case it matters I found out I misidentified the version of PG
this data came from - it's actually 7.3.6.
thanks,
janine
