| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: making the backend's json parser work in frontend code |
| Date: | 2020-01-24 17:48:30 |
| Message-ID: | 29018.1579888110@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I prefer the encoding scheme myself. I don't see the point of the
> error.
Yeah, if we don't want to skip such files, then storing them using
a base64-encoded name (with a different key than regular names)
seems plausible. But I don't really see why we'd go to that much
trouble, nor why we'd think it's likely that tools would correctly
handle a case that is going to have 0.00% usage in the field.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-01-24 17:53:18 | Re: making the backend's json parser work in frontend code |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-01-24 17:42:36 | Re: making the backend's json parser work in frontend code |