| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
| Date: | 2014-03-07 04:33:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20140307043313.GG11419@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 09:50:56PM +0400, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Looks like consensus is done. I and Teodor are not happy with it, but
> what we can do :) One thing I want to do is to reserve our
> contribution to the flagship feature (jsonb), particularly, "binary
> storage for nested structures and indexing. Their work was sponsored
> by Engine Yard".
OK, if we are going with an unchanged hstore in contrib and a new JSONB,
there is no reason to wack around JSONB to be binary compatible with the
old hstore format. What sacrifices did we need to make to have JSBONB
be binary compatible with hstore, can those sacrifices be removed, and
can that be done in time for 9.4?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-03-07 04:35:19 | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-03-07 04:11:08 | Re: pg_ctl status with nonexistent data directory |