Re: Proposal: Add JSON support

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>>> I think you need to assume that the encoding will be the server
>>> encoding, not UTF-8. Although others on this list are better
>>> qualified to speak to that than I am.
>>>
>
>
>> The trouble is that JSON is defined to be specifically Unicode, and in
>> practice for us that means UTF8 on the server side. It could get a bit
>> hairy, and it's definitely not something I think you can wave away with
>> a simple "I'll just throw some encoding/decoding function calls at it."
>>
>
> It's just text, no? Are there any operations where this actually makes
> a difference?
>

If we're going to provide operations on it that might involve some. I
don't know.
> Like Robert, I'm *very* wary of trying to introduce any text storage
> into the backend that is in an encoding different from server_encoding.
> Even the best-case scenarios for that will involve multiple new places for
> encoding conversion failures to happen.
>
>

I agree entirely. All I'm suggesting is that there could be many
wrinkles here.

Here's another thought. Given that JSON is actually specified to consist
of a string of Unicode characters, what will we deliver to the client
where the client encoding is, say Latin1? Will it actually be a legal
JSON byte stream?

cheers

andrew