On 01/08/2013 03:12 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 01/08/2013 09:58 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> If you have such a datum, parsing it involves having it in memory and
>> then taking a copy (I wonder if we could avoid that step - will take
>> a look).
> Here is a Proof Of Concept patch against my development tip on what's
> involved in getting the JSON lexer not to need a nul-terminated string
> to parse. This passes regression, incidentally. The downside is that
> processing is very slightly more complex, and that json_in() would
> need to call strlen() on its input. The upside would be that the
> processing routines I've been working on would no longer need to
> create copies of their json arguments using text_to_cstring() just so
> they can get a null-terminated string to process.
> Consequent changes would modify the signature of makeJsonLexContext()
> so it's first argument would be a text* instead of a char* (and of
> course its logic would change accordingly).
> I could go either way. Thoughts?
this time with patch ...
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2013-01-08 20:26:36|
|Subject: Re: json api WIP patch|
|Previous:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2013-01-08 20:18:08|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Centralize Assert* macros into c.h so its common