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

Re: JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ?

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Joey Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(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 16:33:10
Message-ID: CAHyXU0zzxEV93CvMUuSP7Tn+j9GEqdYj=XjxcU2YaZ+WO-mf5A@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Joey Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hi hackers
>> >>
>> >> After playing around with array_to_json() and row_to_json() functions a
>> >> bit it I have a question - why do we even have 2 variants *_to_json()
>> >
>> > Here's the discussion where that decision was made:
>> >
>> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-01/msg01339.php
>> >
>> > To quote:
>> >
>> >>>> why not call all these functions 'to_json' and overload them?
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't honestly feel that advances clarity much. And we might want to
>> >>> overload each at some stage with options that are specific to the datum
>> >>> type. We have various foo_to_xml() functions now.
>> >>
>> >> -1
>> >>
>> >> older proposal is more consistent with xml functions
>> >
>> > The most compelling argument I see here is the one about options
>> > specific to the datum type.
>>
>> I don't find that to be particularly compelling at all.  to_timestamp
>> for example supports multiple argument versions depending on the input
>> type.
>>
>> >  * If the JSON type does not yet support, say, converting from a
>> > number, it will be apparent from the names and types of the functions,
>> > rather than being a hidden surprise.  On the other hand, array_to_json
>> > and composite_to_json already convert ANY values to JSON, so this
>> > doesn't matter, anyway.
>
>
>
> I am away from base on a consulting assignment all this week, so my
> connectivity and time are severely limited, and I don't have time to respond
> in depth.
>
> Let me just point out two things. First, we are approaching a beta release.
> The time for changing this is long since gone, IMNSHO.

sure. pedantic philosophical arguments aside, I'm already using the
api heavily and would prefer not to see it changed :-).

merlin

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-05-01 16:54:14
Subject: Re: JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ?
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-05-01 16:22:44
Subject: Re: proposal: additional error fields

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