From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Oid registry |
Date: | 2012-09-25 22:22:03 |
Message-ID: | 1204.1348611723@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On 9/25/12 5:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Can we define these functions as being the cast-from-foo-to-json and
>> cast-from-foo-to-xml functions? That would let us use the existing cast
>> infrastructure to manage them.
> Sounds attractive, but there might be some problems in the details. For
> example, you can't cast scalar values to valid json values, because a
> valid json value can only be a dictionary or an array. If we had a flag
> of some kind saying "cast from foo to json, but only when part of a
> larger json serialization, not by itself", then it might work.
Actually, after reading another message you sent, I thought you were
going to respond that your proposed transforms feature would cover it.
If there's some reason that's not what to use, I guess we could add
another optional argument to cast support functions; but that interface
is already rather overloaded.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John R Pierce | 2012-09-25 23:10:16 | Re: Switching timeline over streaming replication |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-09-25 22:06:19 | Re: Oid registry |