|From:||Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|To:||obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Piotr Stefaniak <email(at)piotr-stefaniak(dot)me>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 03.01.2018 00:38, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Andrew Dunstan
> <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 01/02/2018 02:44 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> I am looking on this patch set and it looks very well.
>>>> Personally I dislike any extensions against SQL/JSON in this patch. And
>>>> there is lot of extensions there. It doesn't mean so these extensions are
>>>> bad, but it should be passed as next step and there should be separate
>>>> discussion related to these extensions.
>>>> Please, can you reduce this patch to only SQL/JSON part?
>>> +1, our goal is to push the standard to PG 11, which is more or less realistic.
>>> Nikita will rearrange the patch set, so patches 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10,
>>> 11, 12, which
>>> implement SQL/JSON could be applied without extra patches.
>>> Patches 5,6 are desirable, since we can implement custom operators. This is
>>> very important for postgres, which is known as extensible database with rich set
>>> of extensions. Think about geojson with spatial operators or array
>>> operators, for
>>> example. But I agree, it's subject of separate thread.
>>> In very extreme case, we could commit for PG 11 only jsonpath-related patches
>>> 1,2 and probably 4. I think, that jsonpath is what we really miss in postgres.
>> That seems a bit pessimistic. I hope we can do lots better.
> Would love too !
>> It looks to me like patches 1, 7 and 8 can stand alone, and should be
>> submitted separately, and we should try to get them committed early.
>> These are all small patches - a couple of hundred lines each.
>> Patches 2, 3, and 4 should come next - I included patch 3 because I
>> think GIN indexing is going to be critical to success.
> agree, we can consider patch 4 later
>> After that 9, 10, 11 and 12.
> again, 10 , 12 may be considered later
>> I don't have a problem with the rest, but they should probably have a
>> lower priority. If we can get to them well and good.
>> We should stop use the word 'extension' when we don't mean what Postgres
>> calls an extension (which is only patch 14 in this case). Call it an
>> addition or extra feature or something else. Otherwise it gets confusing.
> +1, lets call 'extra'
>> I'm not 100% clear on why we're adding jsonpathx as an extension,
>> though. Do we not think most json users will want to use map, reduce etc.?
> We decided to do that, since the whole patch set is already big.
>> Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
>> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
I have removed all extra features from the patch set, they can be found
github repository: https://github.com/postgrespro/sqljson/tree/sqljson_ext.
Now there are 10 patches which have the following dependencies:
7: 2, 5, 6
8: 7, 4
10: 8, 9
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
|Next Message||Alexander Korotkov||2018-01-02 22:21:34||Re: [Patch] Checksums for SLRU files|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2018-01-02 21:49:28||Re: Copyright update|