Re: Assert failure with ICU support
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Assert failure with ICU support |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3170490.1682020381@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Assert failure with ICU support (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Assert failure with ICU support
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes: > On Wed, 2023-04-19 at 16:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> + if (c >= 0x100 || !iscalnum(c)) > I'm curious why you say >= 0x100 rather than >= 0x80? Right, should be 0x80, my thinko. > What's the purpose of the error? Is it to catch mistakes, or is it to > reserve room for adding new escape sequences in the future? As I read it, it's meant to leave room for defining more escapes. If we allowed \x for any non-currently-defined "x" to just be "x", then there would be a compatibility problem if we wanted to make it mean something else. But I think it's sufficient to reserve the ASCII letters for that purpose. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: