Subject: Re: PG 13 release notes, first draft
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
References: <20200505031600.GB21752@momjian.us>
 <CACPNZCugECZv_5TNFFQ+R9Pp15PP5426oAstC1g7kTS1aLgrnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200505143118.GH21752@momjian.us> <5EB317A8.1020907@anastigmatix.net>
 <20200507134657.GK3649@momjian.us>
Cc: John Naylor <john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>
Message-ID: <5EB44EBA.3040206@anastigmatix.net>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 14:08:58 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200507134657.GK3649@momjian.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 05/07/20 09:46, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Ah, very good point.  New text is:
> 
> 	Allow Unicode escapes, e.g., E'\u####', in databases that do not
> 	use UTF-8 encoding (Tom Lane)
> 
> 	The Unicode characters must be available in the database encoding.
> ...
> 
> I am only using E'\u####' as an example.

Hmm, how about:

	Allow Unicode escapes, e.g., E'\u####' or U&'\####', to represent
	any character available in the database encoding, even when that
	encoding is not UTF-8.

which I suggest as I recall more clearly that the former condition
was not that such escapes were always rejected in other encodings; it was
that they were rejected if they represented characters outside of ASCII.
(Yossarian let out a respectful whistle.)

My inclination is to give at least one example each of the E and U&
form, if only so the casual reader of the notes may think "say! I hadn't
heard of that other form!" and be inspired to find out about it. But
perhaps it seems too much.

Regards,
-Chap