From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joey Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)toroid(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Claes Jakobsson <claes(at)surfar(dot)nu>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |
Date: | 2012-02-01 16:28:50 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ2iA=ssFpJetw0UZoOew4SgjdJ-wocYM4YCrx7AtRZgg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Joey Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm mostly in favor of allowing \u0000. Banning \u0000 means users
> can't use JSON strings to marshal binary blobs, e.g. by escaping
> non-printable characters and only using U+0000..U+00FF. Instead, they
> have to use base64 or similar.
I agree. I mean, representing data using six bytes per source byte is
a bit unattractive from an efficiency point of view, but I'm sure
someone is going to want to do it. It's also pretty clear that JSON
string -> PG text data type is going to admit of a number of error
conditions (transcoding errors and perhaps invalid surrogate pairs) so
throwing one more on the pile doesn't cost much.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-02-01 17:18:59 | Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-01 16:04:15 | Re: BUG #6425: Bus error in slot_deform_tuple |