Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: JSON for PG 9.2

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Claes Jakobsson <claes(at)surfar(dot)nu>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joey Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2
Date: 2012-01-11 13:38:21
Message-ID: CAFj8pRCgwS8OMyS9CDeDN7SCfi95JCTXzDrK6H9cB9MO6uqGTg@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2012/1/11 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:18 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 2012/1/11 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:06 PM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 20, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Claes Jakobsson wrote:
>>>>> Are people explicitly asking for a) *JSON* datatype or b) a type that lets you store arbitrary complex semi-untyped data structures?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>> if b) then this might get a lot more interesting
>>>>
>>>> JSON is the most popular/likely way to represent that, I think.
>>>
>>> On that note, here's an updated version of the patch I posted
>>> upthread, with some regression tests and minimal documentation.
>>
>> I like this patch and this feature.
>>
>> I see only one issue - there is not functionality that helps generate
>> JSON in pg.
>>
>> What do you think about functions: array_to_json(anyarray),
>> row_to_json(any) and format_json(text, text, ...)
>
> I think we might want all of that stuff, but I doubt there is time to
> do it for 9.2.
>
> Actually, I think the next logical step would be to define equality
> (is there an official definition of that for JSON?) and build a btree
> opclass.  I believe the code I've already written could be extended to
> construct an abstract syntax tree for those operations that need it.
> But we need to make some decisions first.  A btree opclass requires a
> total ordering, so we have to arbitrarily define whether 1 < true, 1 <
> [1], 1 < "1", etc.
>

I don't understand why we have to do it?

We don't support similar functionality for XML, so why for JSON?

Pavel

> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-01-11 13:39:15
Subject: Re: checkpoint writeback via sync_file_range
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-01-11 13:33:53
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group