Re: Small patch to improve safety of utf8_to_unicode().

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Small patch to improve safety of utf8_to_unicode().
Date: 2026-06-27 14:02:05
Message-ID: 227d0c0c6c7a23c297033df01ad010cbeea5fb09.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2026-06-26 at 12:38 +0800, Chao Li wrote:
> Sounds like 0001 will be back patched. In that case, the commit
> message "defend against invalid UTF8” seems too broad. Does it make
> sense to add some brief description about the defend behavior to the
> function header comment and the commit message?

Right. Would "defend against truncated byte sequences" or "defend
against truncated UTF8" be better wording?

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuya Kawata 2026-06-27 14:14:16 Re: [PATCH] doc: clarify pg_stat_lock.fastpath_exceeded scope
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2026-06-27 12:00:37 Re: Move FOR PORTION OF checks out of analysis