From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joseph Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: Add JSON support |
Date: | 2010-03-28 21:19:37 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f071003281419u3cfc48e4sb984a14379e64a8e@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Joseph Adams
<joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm wondering whether the internal representation of JSON should be
> plain JSON text, or some binary code that's easier to traverse and
> whatnot. For the sake of code size, just keeping it in text is
> probably best.
+1 for text.
> Now my thoughts and opinions on the JSON parsing/unparsing itself:
>
> It should be built-in, rather than relying on an external library
> (like XML does).
Why? I'm not saying you aren't right, but you need to make an
argument rather than an assertion. This is a community, so no one is
entitled to decide anything unilaterally, and people want to be
convinced - including me.
> As far as character encodings, I'd rather keep that out of the JSON
> parsing/serializing code itself and assume UTF-8. Wherever I'm wrong,
> I'll just throw encode/decode/validate operations at it.
I think you need to assume that the encoding will be the server
encoding, not UTF-8. Although others on this list are better
qualified to speak to that than I am.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-03-28 21:42:32 | Re: Proposal: Add JSON support |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-03-28 21:08:32 | Re: join removal |