Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Dilger <pgsql(at)markdilger(dot)com> writes:
>>> pgsql=# select chr(14989485);
>>> (1 row)
> Is there a principled rationale for this particular behavior as
> opposed to any other?
> In particular, in UTF8 land I'd have expected the argument of chr()
> to be interpreted as a Unicode code point, not as actual UTF8 bytes
> with a randomly-chosen endianness.
> Not sure what to do in other multibyte encodings.
"Not sure what to do in other multibyte encodings" was pretty much my rationale
for this particular behavior. I standardized on network byte order because
there are only two endianesses to choose from, and the other seems to be a more
I looked around on the web for a standard for how to convert an integer into a
valid multibyte character and didn't find anything. Andrew, Supernews has said
upthread that chr() is clearly wrong and needs to be fixed. If so, we need some
clear definition what "fixed" means.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Mark Dilger||Date: 2007-04-02 22:05:27|
|Subject: Re: Bug in UTF8-Validation Code?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-04-02 21:42:14|
|Subject: Re: Questions about pid file creation code |