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.
cheers
andrew
