| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: JSON and unicode surrogate pairs |
| Date: | 2013-06-12 04:13:17 |
| Message-ID: | 51B7F55D.2090409@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/12/2013 08:42 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> If we work by analogy to Postgres' own handling of Unicode escapes,
> we'll raise an error on any Unicode escape beyond ASCII (not on input
> for legacy reasons, but on trying to process such datums). I gather that
> would meet your objection.
I could live with that if eager validation on input was the default, but
could be disabled by setting (say) compat_lazy_json_validation = on .
I don't like the idea of leaving us saddled with weak validation just
that's what we've got. It's been an ongoing source of pain as UTF-8
support has improved and I'd really like a way to avoid semi-valid JSON
making it into the DB and causing similar problems.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-06-12 04:41:59 | Re: Clean switchover |
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2013-06-12 03:55:21 | Re: Clean switchover |