Re: Is MinMaxExpr really leakproof? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Isaac Morland
Subject Re: Is MinMaxExpr really leakproof?
Date
Msg-id CAMsGm5cZC_5=Ub5GWtCGJEB5t1gtq1cjkFyn-W_pK0cDbubpiw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Is MinMaxExpr really leakproof?  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: Is MinMaxExpr really leakproof?
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 at 12:26, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:

bttextcmp() and other varstr_cmp() callers fall afoul of the same restriction
with their "could not convert string to UTF-16" errors
(https://postgr.es/m/CADyhKSXPwrUv%2B9LtqPAQ_gyZTv4hYbr2KwqBxcs6a3Vee1jBLQ%40mail.gmail.com).
Leaking the binary fact that an unspecified string contains an unspecified rare
Unicode character is not a serious leak, however.  Also, those errors would be a
substantial usability impediment if they happened much in practice; you couldn't
index affected values.


I'm confused. What characters cannot be represented in UTF-16?

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Is MinMaxExpr really leakproof?