| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, 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 17:56:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYbih=cNJfWAkEXFir17m7EXC2U6s7WxVT=iBOyqtYRrA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:48 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
I mean, I gave a not-totally-unrealistic example of how this could
happen upthread. I agree it's going to be rare, but it's not usually
OK to decide that if a user does something a little unusual,
not-obviously-related features subtly break.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-01-24 18:01:41 | Re: Allow to_date() and to_timestamp() to accept localized names |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-01-24 17:56:36 | Re: making the backend's json parser work in frontend code |