From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |
Date: | 2011-12-13 07:06:36 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJm+u8ddJExSQAPPDuZxRJ3OHs01y-i7kUrSX868g1Zww@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 12/12/2011 03:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> There are way too many places that assume that the typmod can
>>> just be discarded. I don't think that's going to fly, because
>>> =(text,text) probably has different semantics from =(json,json).
>
>> And certain places where they are not allowed at all, I think (unless I
>> am misremembering the early debates about enum types and output functions).
>
> Yeah. The current system design assumes that typmod specifies a
> constraint of some sort. It is not possible to use it to change the
> semantics of the datatype. The most obvious way in which this is true
> is that selection of which operators and functions to apply to values
> does not consider typmod of the values. This is not something we should
> lightly revisit. We don't even have a handle on how to make domains
> behave differently from their underlying datatypes, and those *do* have
> their own type OIDs. Injecting typmod into the algorithm seems like a
> disaster from here.
I'm glad I didn't think of doing that before then.
Can we agree some wording to put into the docs? Sounds like some clear
warnings are needed.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2011-12-13 07:53:08 | Re: pg_cancel_backend by non-superuser |
Previous Message | Jan Urbański | 2011-12-13 07:03:33 | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |