Janine Sisk wrote:
0xEDA7A1 (UTF-8) corresponds to UNICODE code point 0xD9E1, which,
when interpreted as a high surrogare and followed by a low surrogate,
would correspond to the UTF-16 encoding of a code point
between 0x88400 and 0x887FF (depending on the value of the low surrogate).

These code points do not correspond to any valid character.
So - unless there is a flaw in my reasoning - there's something
fishy with these data anyway.

Janine, could you give us a hex dump of that line from the copy statement?
Certainly. Do you want to see it as it came from the old database,
or after I ran it through iconv? Although iconv wasn't able to solve
this problem it did fix others in other tables; unfortunately I have
no way of knowing if it also mangled some data at the same time.
Both; but the "before" dump is of course more likely to give a clue.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 5 of 5 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-general @
categoriespostgresql
postedJan 17, '08 at 11:02p
activeJan 21, '08 at 8:15a
posts5
users3
websitepostgresql.org
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase