On 01/29/2015 05:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> 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?
> BTW, as to the point about encoding violations: we *already* ban \uXXXX
> sequences that don't correspond to valid characters in the current
> encoding. The attempt to exclude U+0000 from the set of banned characters
> was ill-advised, plain and simple.
>
>
Actually, unless the encoding is utf8 we ban all non-ascii unicode
escapes even if they might designate a valid character in the current
encoding. This was arrived at after some discussion here. So adding
\u0000 to the list of banned characters is arguably just making us more
consistent.
cheers
andrew