On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 10:08 AM Florents Tselai <florents.tse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:51 AM Cary Huang <cary.hu...@highgo.ca> wrote: > >> > Oh well - you're probably right. >> > I guess I was blinded by my convenience. >> > Adding a 'base64url' option there is more appropriate. >> >> I agree with it too. It is neater to add "base64url" as a new option for >> encode() and decode() SQL functions in encode.c. >> > > Attaching a v2 with that. > >> >> In addition, you may also want to add the C versions of base64rul encode >> and decode functions to "src/common/base64.c" as new API calls so that >> the frontend, backend applications and extensions can also have access >> to these base64url conversions. >> >> > We could expose this in base64.c - it'll need some more checking > A few more test cases, especially around padding, are necessary. > I'll come back to this. > Here's a v3 with some (hopefully) better test cases.
v3-base64url.patch
Description: Binary data
