| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de>, Ryan Pedela <rpedela(at)datalanche(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Generalized JSON output functions |
| Date: | 2015-07-17 14:30:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20150717143036.GR2301@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I have already pointed out how this patch is fundamentally broken. You can
> achieve your aims by a fairly small amount of code inside your logical
> decoder, and with no core code changes whatsoever. So I'm puzzled why we are
> even still debating this broken design.
I went through all your responses over the entire thread and I couldn't
find your argument about how this is fundamentally broken. Can you
restate, or maybe give an archive link if I just missed it?
(Saying "but it changes so much of the existing code" is not really a
fundamental problem to me. I mean, it's not like the existing code is
perfect and needs no changes.)
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2015-07-17 14:31:47 | Re: [PATCH] Generalized JSON output functions |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2015-07-17 14:16:21 | Re: pgsql: Retain comments on indexes and constraints at ALTER TABLE ... TY |