Re: JSON for PG 9.2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: JSON for PG 9.2
Date
Msg-id 21D78B15-863A-4E27-A64D-AEAF62A4C98B@kineticode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: JSON for PG 9.2  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: JSON for PG 9.2  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Jan 20, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

> If, however,
> we're not using UTF-8, we have to first turn \uXXXX into a Unicode
> code point, then covert that to a character in the database encoding,
> and then test for equality with the other character after that.  I'm
> not sure whether that's possible in general, how to do it, or how
> efficient it is.  Can you or anyone shed any light on that topic?

If it’s like the XML example, it should always represent a Unicode code point, and *not* be converted to the other
characterset, no? 

At any rate, since the JSON standard requires UTF-8, such distinctions having to do with alternate encodings are not
likelyto be covered, so I suspect we can do whatever we want here. It’s outside the spec. 

Best,

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2
Next
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: Command Triggers