Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 01/27/2015 01:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In particular, I would like to suggest that the current representation of
>> \u0000 is fundamentally broken and that we have to change it, not try to
>> band-aid around it. This will mean an on-disk incompatibility for jsonb
>> data containing U+0000, but hopefully there is very little of that out
>> there yet. If we can get a fix into 9.4.1, I think it's reasonable to
>> consider such solutions.
> Hmm, OK. I had thought we'd be ruling that out, but I agree if it's on
> the table what I suggested is unnecessary.
Well, we can either fix it now or suffer with a broken representation
forever. I'm not wedded to the exact solution I described, but I think
we'll regret it if we don't change the representation.
The only other plausible answer seems to be to flat out reject \u0000.
But I assume nobody likes that.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
