Re: JSON for PG 9.2
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Joey Adams <joeyadams3.14159@gmail.com>
Cc: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@toroid.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@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>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>
Date: 2012-02-01T16:28:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Joey Adams <joeyadams3.14159@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm mostly in favor of allowing \u0000. Banning \u0000 means users > can't use JSON strings to marshal binary blobs, e.g. by escaping > non-printable characters and only using U+0000..U+00FF. Instead, they > have to use base64 or similar. I agree. I mean, representing data using six bytes per source byte is a bit unattractive from an efficiency point of view, but I'm sure someone is going to want to do it. It's also pretty clear that JSON string -> PG text data type is going to admit of a number of error conditions (transcoding errors and perhaps invalid surrogate pairs) so throwing one more on the pile doesn't cost much. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company