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

Re: JSON for PG 9.2

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joey Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(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>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2
Date: 2012-01-20 17:14:35
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Jan 20, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

> If, however,
> we're not using UTF-8, we have to first turn \uXXXX into a Unicode
> code point, then covert that to a character in the database encoding,
> and then test for equality with the other character after that.  I'm
> not sure whether that's possible in general, how to do it, or how
> efficient it is.  Can you or anyone shed any light on that topic?

If it’s like the XML example, it should always represent a Unicode code point, and *not* be converted to the other character set, no?

At any rate, since the JSON standard requires UTF-8, such distinctions having to do with alternate encodings are not likely to be covered, so I suspect we can do whatever we want here. It’s outside the spec.



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2012-01-20 17:14:47
Subject: Re: Command Triggers
Previous:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2012-01-20 17:12:13
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group