Re: Decision by Monday: PQescapeString() vs. encoding violation

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2025-02-15 12:35:45 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> I am not suggesting a change, but there's a minor point about the
>> behavior of the replacement that I'd like to highlight:
>> Unicode discusses a choice[1]: "An ill-formed subsequence consisting of
>> more than one code unit could be treated as a single error or as
>> multiple errors."

> It seems completely infeasible to me to to implement the "single error"
> approach in a minor version. It'd afaict require non-trivial new
> infrastructure. We can't just consume up to the next byte without a high bit,
> because some encodings have subsequent bytes that are not guaranteed to have a
> high bit set.

Yeah.  Also I think that probably depends on being able to tell the
difference between a first byte and a not-first byte of a multibyte
character, something that works in UTF-8 but not necessarily elsewhere.
As I commented in the security thread, Unicode's recommendations seem
pretty UTF-8-centric; I'm hesitant to adopt them wholesale in code
that has to deal with other encodings.

The v5 patch seems Good Enough(TM) to me.  We can refine it later
perhaps; I don't think something like the above would affect
anything that external code should care about.

			regards, tom lane