Re: [GENERAL] Support for \u0000? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Support for \u0000?
Date
Msg-id 3650.1500503573@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to [GENERAL] Support for \u0000?  (Matthew Byrne <mjw.byrne@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] Support for \u0000?  (Matthew Byrne <mjw.byrne@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
Matthew Byrne <mjw.byrne@gmail.com> 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 \u0000 and UTF 0?  This would isolate nul-containing
> byte arrays to the implementations of those types and keep backward
> compatibility by leaving TEXT and JSONB alone.

The problem is not inside those datatypes; either text or jsonb could
trivially store \0 bytes.  The problem is passing such values through
APIs that don't support it.  Changing those APIs would affect *all*
datatypes.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Matthew Byrne
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Support for \u0000?
Next
From: Matthew Byrne
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Support for \u0000?