I see. Thanks for the quick responses!
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Matthew Byrne writes:
> > Would a more feasible approach be to introduce new types (say, TEXT2 and
> > JSONB2 - or something better-sounding) which are the same as the old ones
> > but add for support \u
Thanks for the response Tom. I understand this would be a mammoth task.
Would a more feasible approach be to introduce new types (say, TEXT2 and
JSONB2 - or something better-sounding) which are the same as the old ones
but add for support \u and UTF 0? This would isolate nul-containing
byte
Matthew Byrne writes:
> Would a more feasible approach be to introduce new types (say, TEXT2 and
> JSONB2 - or something better-sounding) which are the same as the old ones
> but add for support \u and UTF 0? This would isolate nul-containing
> byte arrays to the implementations of those type
Matthew Byrne writes:
> Are there any plans to support \u in JSONB and, relatedly, UTF code
> point 0 in TEXT?
No. It's basically never going to happen because of the widespread use
of C strings (nul-terminated strings) inside the backend. Making \0 a
legal member of strings would break all
Are there any plans to support \u in JSONB and, relatedly, UTF code
point 0 in TEXT? To the best of my knowledge \u is valid in JSON and
code point 0 is valid in UTF-8 but Postgres rejects both, which severely
limits its usefulness in many cases.
I am currently working around the issue by
