Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: JSON for PG 9.2

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-02-01 17:18:59
Subject: Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-02-01 16:04:15
Subject: Re: BUG #6425: Bus error in slot_deform_tuple

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group