Re: GSoC 2018: thrift encoding format

From: Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, Charles Cui <charles(dot)cui1984(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: GSoC 2018: thrift encoding format
Date: 2018-05-04 15:26:56
Message-ID: 20180504152656.GB23918@e733.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello Stephen,

> Perhaps the design decisions aren't all made beforehand, but they also
> shouldn't be made in a vacuum- there should be discussions on -hackers
> about what the right decision is for a given aspect and that's what
> should be worked towards.

+1, agree.

> > Personally I would probably just write a Thrift<->JSONB converter. But
> > there are pros and cons of this approach. For instance, CPU and memory
> > overhead for creating and storing temporary JSONB object is an obvious
> > drawback. On the other hand there are time limits for this project and
> > thus it makes sense to implement a feature as fast and as simple as
> > possible, and optimize it later (if necessary).
>
> Just having such a convertor would reduce the usefulness of this
> extension dramatically, wouldn't it? Considering the justification for
> the extension used on the GSoC project page, it certainly strikes me as
> losing most of the value if we just convert to JSONB.
>
> > Maybe Charles likes to optimize everything. In this case he may choose
> > to implement all the getters and setters from scratch. This doesn't
> > exclude possibility of implementing the Thrift<->JSONB converter later.
>
> Having a way to cast between the two is entirely reasonable, imv, but
> that's very different from having the data only able to be stored as
> JSONB..

Good point.

> I understand that you're open to having it as a new data type or as a
> bytea, but I don't agree. This should be a new data type, just as json
> is a distinct data type and so is jsonb.

Could you please explain in a little more detail why you believe so?
Also I wonder whether in your opinion the extension should provide
implicit casts from/to bytea as well.

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2018-05-04 15:42:12 Re: GSoC 2018: thrift encoding format
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2018-05-04 15:22:51 Re: Built-in connection pooling