| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joey Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Claes Jakobsson <claes(at)gluefinance(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |
| Date: | 2011-12-18 09:54:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBMPXYnPF2GD8SyQa55R9F4fLwO=GcbPB9AwK6bO7uO+A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2011/12/18 Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>:
> On 18/12/11 04:21, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 7:50 PM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Love having the start here. I forwarded this message to Claes Jakobsson, creator of the jansson-using pg-json extension. He’s a bit less supportive. He gave me permission to quote him here:
>>>
>>>> Frankly I see the inclusion of a JSON datatype in core as unnecessary. Stuff should be moved out of core rather than in, as we do in Perl. Also, does this patch mean that the 'json' type is forever claimed and can't be replaced by extensions?
>>>>
>>>> There's little reason to reimplement JSON parsing, comparision and other routines when there's a multitude of already good libraries.
>>
>> That's fair enough, but we've had *many* requests for this
>> functionality in core, I don't see what we lose by having at least
>> some basic functionality built in.
>
> I think having a JSON data type in core would drastically limit the
> exposure third-party JSON extensions would get and that's bad. There are
> tons of interesting features a JSON type could have and tying its
> development to a one year release cycle might be a disservice both for
> people who are willing to provide these features earlier, the users
> which are faced with a choice between a fast-moving third-party addon
> and a blessed core type and would cause overall confusion.
>
> How about we try the tsearch way and let JSON extensions live outside
> core for some time and perhaps if one emerges dominant and would benefit
> from inclusion then consider it?
it should be contrib modules
Pavel
>
> If we keep treating extensions as second-class citizens, they'll never
> get the mindshare and importance we seem to want for them (or otherwise
> why go through all the trouble to provide an infrastructure for them).
>
> Cheers,
> Jan
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-12-18 10:19:32 | Re: Page Checksums |
| Previous Message | Jan Urbański | 2011-12-18 09:49:27 | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |