Re: JSON for PG 9.2
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+TgmoZ2iA=ssFpJetw0UZoOew4SgjdJ-wocYM4YCrx7AtRZgg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 (Joey Adams <joeyadams3.14159@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: JSON for PG 9.2
|
| Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: