On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Joseph Adams
> 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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2010-03-28 21:42:32|
|Subject: Re: Proposal: Add JSON support|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-03-28 21:08:32|
|Subject: Re: join removal|