| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: additional json functionality |
| Date: | 2013-11-15 22:02:12 |
| Message-ID: | 528699E4.7040107@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/15/2013 04:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> writes:
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:18:22PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> I believe this was a danger we recognized when we added the JSON type,
>>> including the possibility that a future binary type might need to be a
>>> separate type due to compatibility issues. The only sad thing is the
>>> naming; it would be better for the new type to carry the JSON name in
>>> the future, but there's no way to make that work that I can think of.
>> What about a GUC for json version? Then you could choose and they
>> could both be call json.
> GUCs that change user-visible semantics have historically proven to be
> much less good ideas than they seem at first glance.
>
>
Yeah, it would be a total foot gun here I think.
I've come to the conclusion that the only possible solution is to have a
separate type. That's a bit sad, but there it is. The upside is that
this will make the work Teodor has mentioned simpler. (Desperately
making lemonade from lemons here.)
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2013-11-15 22:16:36 | Re: additional json functionality |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-15 21:53:26 | Re: additional json functionality |