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

> On Jun 27, 2026, at 22:02, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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
>

Yes, I think they are better. “Truncated” is more specific than “invalid”. I'm slightly more keen on the second phrase.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/