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

Re: JSON for PG 9.2

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joey Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(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 15:31:26
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> The code I've written so far does no canonicalization of the input
>> value of any kind, just as we do for XML.
> Fair enough.
>> So, given that framework, what the patch does is this: if you're using
>> UTF-8, then \uXXXX is accepted, provided that XXXX is something that
>> equates to a legal Unicode code point.  It isn't converted to the
>> corresponding character: it's just validated.  If you're NOT using
>> UTF-8, then it allows \uXXXX for code points up through 127 (which we
>> assume are the same in all encodings) and anything higher than that is
>> rejected.
> This seems a bit silly.  If you're going to leave the escape sequence as
> ASCII, then why not just validate that it names a legal Unicode code
> point and be done?  There is no reason whatever that that behavior needs
> to depend on the database encoding.

Mostly because that would prevent us from adding canonicalization in
the future, AFAICS, and I don't want to back myself into a corner.

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-01-20 15:32:43
Subject: Re: CLOG contention, part 2
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-01-20 15:30:33
Subject: Re: Group commit, revised

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