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