Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I think you need to assume that the encoding will be the server
>>> encoding, not UTF-8. Although others on this list are better
>>> qualified to speak to that than I am.
>> The trouble is that JSON is defined to be specifically Unicode, and in
>> practice for us that means UTF8 on the server side. It could get a bit
>> hairy, and it's definitely not something I think you can wave away with
>> a simple "I'll just throw some encoding/decoding function calls at it."
> It's just text, no? Are there any operations where this actually makes
> a difference?
If we're going to provide operations on it that might involve some. I
> Like Robert, I'm *very* wary of trying to introduce any text storage
> into the backend that is in an encoding different from server_encoding.
> Even the best-case scenarios for that will involve multiple new places for
> encoding conversion failures to happen.
I agree entirely. All I'm suggesting is that there could be many
Here's another thought. Given that JSON is actually specified to consist
of a string of Unicode characters, what will we deliver to the client
where the client encoding is, say Latin1? Will it actually be a legal
JSON byte stream?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-03-28 23:36:10|
|Subject: Re: Proposal: Add JSON support |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-03-28 23:22:28|
|Subject: Re: Alpha release this week?|