On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I have yet to understand what we fix by banning \u0000. How is 0000 >> different from any other four-digit hexadecimal number that's not a >> valid character in the current encoding? What does banning that one >> particular value do? > > BTW, as to the point about encoding violations: we *already* ban \uXXXX > sequences that don't correspond to valid characters in the current > encoding. The attempt to exclude U+0000 from the set of banned characters > was ill-advised, plain and simple.
Oh. Well, that's hard to argue with, then. I can't imagine why we'd disallow all bytes invalid in the current encoding *except* for \0. When I originally coded up the JSON data type, I intended for it to store invalidly-encoded data that was nevertheless valid JSON without trying to interpret it. It seems we've drifted pretty far off of that principle. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
