Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah? Cool. Does John's proposed patch do it "correctly"?
>
> http://candle.pha.pa.us/mhonarc/patches2/msg00076.html
Some comments on that patch:
Doesn't pg_utf2wchar_with_len need changes for the longer sequences?
UtfToLocal also appears to need changes.
If we support sequences >4 bytes (>U+10FFFF), then UtfToLocal/LocalToUtf
and the associated translation tables need a redesign as they currently
assume the sequence fits in an unsigned int. (IIRC, Unicode doesn't use
>U+10FFFF, but UTF-8 can encode it?)
-O
