Re: JSON for PG 9.2

On sön, 2012-01-22 at 11:43 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Actually, given recent discussion I think that test should just be 
> removed from json.c. We don't actually have any test that the code
> point is valid (e.g. that it doesn't refer to an unallocated code
> point). We don't do that elsewhere either - the unicode_to_utf8()
> function the scanner uses to turn \unnnn escapes into utf8 doesn't
> look for unallocated code points. I'm not sure how much other
> validation we should do - for example on correct use of surrogate
> pairs.

We do check the correctness of surrogate pairs elsewhere.  Search for
"surrogate" in scan.l; should be easy to copy.