Thread

  1. Re: encode/decode support for base64url

    Florents Tselai <florents.tselai@gmail.com> — 2025-07-10T20:38:43Z

    
    > On 10 Jul 2025, at 10:07 PM, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
    > 
    > Hi Florents,
    > 
    > On Jul 9, 2025, at 23:25, Florents Tselai <florents.tselai@gmail.com> wrote:
    > 
    >>> I reviewed and tested v4. To me it looks as good as it will get.
    >>> Personally I would change a few minor things here and there and
    >>> probably merge all three patches into a single commit. This however is
    >>> up to the committer to decide.
    >> 
    >> Attaching a single-file patch
    > 
    > Somehow missed this thread previously. Had a quick look and had the same question Aleksander asked up-thread:
    > 
    >> Although it is a possible implementation, wouldn't it be better to
    >> parametrize pg_base64_encode instead of traversing the string twice?
    >> Same for pg_base64_decode. You can refactor pg_base64_encode and make
    >> it a wrapper for pg_base64_encode_impl if needed.
    > 
    > It looks as though there could be complements to _base64 and b64urllookup:
    > 
    > ```patch
    > diff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/encode.c b/src/backend/utils/adt/encode.c
    > @@ -273,6 +273,9 @@ hex_dec_len(const char *src, size_t srclen)
    > static const char _base64[] =
    > "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/";
    > 
    > +static const char _base64url[] =
    > +"ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789-_";
    > +
    > static const int8 b64lookup[128] = {
    > 	-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
    > 	-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
    > @@ -284,6 +287,18 @@ static const int8 b64lookup[128] = {
    > 	41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
    > };
    > 
    > +static const int8 b64urllookup[128] = {
    > +	-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
    > +	-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
    > +	-1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, 62, -1, -1,
    > +	52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
    > +	-1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
    > +	15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, -1, -1, -1, -1, 62,
    > +	-1, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,
    > +	41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, -1, -1, -1, -1, -1,
    > +};
    > +
    > +
    > static uint64
    > pg_base64_encode(const char *src, size_t len, char *dst)
    > {
    > ```
    > 
    > And then add the implementation functions that take argument with the proper lookup tables.
    > 
    > Best,
    > 
    > David
    > 
    
    Why isn’t this sufficient? 
    
    static uint64
    pg_base64_encode_internal(const char *src, size_t len, char *dst, bool url)
    {
        const char *alphabet = url ? _base64url : _base64;
    There’s already a a bool url param and the alphabet is toggled based on that