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>
>> > 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
>> > * 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 :-).
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 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 Haas||Date: 2012-05-01 16:22:44|
|Subject: Re: proposal: additional error fields|