From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Joseph Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should the JSON datatype be a specialization of text? |
Date: | 2010-06-17 16:52:21 |
Message-ID: | 18096.1276793541@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'm
>> inclined to think that associating #2 with casts might be better,
>> because clearly casting numerics or bools to JSON ought to act like #2.
>> If we do it as you suggest then casting text to JSON behaves differently
>> from casting anything else to JSON.
> I think this is going to turn into a thicket of semantic ambiguity.
True. Maybe it would be better to *not have* casts as such between JSON
and non-text data types, but make you write something like
json_literal(numeric)
to get a JSON literal representing a value. Then json_literal(text)
would do an unsurprising thing (analogous to quote_literal), and we
could use the casts between text and json for the behavior where the
text is interpreted as a valid JSON object.
> Joseph's proposal also involved foo::text::json::text <> foo::text,
> which seems pretty ugly to me.
Agreed, that's not too nice.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andy Balholm | 2010-06-17 16:57:26 | Re: ANNOUNCE list (was Re: New PGXN Extension site) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-17 16:43:13 | Re: streaming replication breaks horribly if master crashes |