On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > On 01/29/2015 12:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> The cause of this bug is commit 0ad1a816320a2b539a51628e2a0b1e83ff096b1d, >>> which I'm inclined to think we need to simply revert, not render even >>> more squirrely. >> Yes, that commit looks broken. If you convert from text to JSON you >> should get a JSON string equivalent to the text you started out with. >> That commit departs from that in favor of allowing \uXXXX sequences in >> the text being converted to turn into a single character (or perhaps >> an encoding error) after a text->json->text roundtrip. Maybe I >> haven't had enough caffeine today, but I can't see how that can >> possibly be a good idea. > > Possibly. > > I'm coming down more and more on the side of Tom's suggestion just to ban > \u0000 in jsonb. I think that would let us have some fairly simple and > consistent rules. I'm not too worried that we'll be disallowing input that > we've previously allowed. We've done that often in the past, although less > often in point releases. I certainly don't want to wait a full release cycle > to fix this if possible.
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? In any case, whatever we do about that issue, the idea that the text -> json string transformation can *change the input string into some other string* seems like an independent problem. -- 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
