Horton

Re: JSON for PG 9.2

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Joey Adams <joeyadams3.14159@gmail.com>, "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>, Claes Jakobsson <claes@surfar.nu>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Jan Urbański <wulczer@wulczer.org>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>
Date: 2012-01-20T15:27:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.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.

			regards, tom lane