| From: | Joey Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PavelStehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ? |
| Date: | 2012-05-01 16:56:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAARyMpA9E6Mt4SYQfTzqYOZ_7=qNu+SR5rYRjuAVaXp-wR6uWg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Second, RFC 4627 is absolutely clear: a valid JSON value can only be an
> object or an array, so this thing about converting arbitrary datum values to
> JSON is a fantasy. If anything, we should adjust the JSON input routines to
> disallow anything else, rather than start to output what is not valid JSON.
No, the RFC says (emphasis mine):
A JSON *text* is a serialized object or array.
If we let the JSON type correspond to a *value* instead, this
restriction does not apply, and the JSON type has a useful recursive
definition.
For example, this function would not be possible if we applied the
"object or array" restriction:
unnest(json) returns setof json
Note that a similar distinction appears with the XML type: "document"
versus "content".
-Joey
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2012-05-01 16:57:39 | Re: Memory usage during sorting |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-01 16:54:14 | Re: JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ? |