Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: JSON for PG 9.2

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Claes Jakobsson <claes(at)surfar(dot)nu>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joey Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2
Date: 2012-01-11 15:15:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I understand it now. My opinion is so some operators and index search
> can be in 9.2 - so use a JSON just as communication format now.
> * we need to build JSON
> * we need to check if some is valid JSON
> * we need to store JSON
> other steps should be (9.2)
> * basic operators eq, neeq
> * some tool like XQuery - simple query on JSON document available from
> SQL that can be used for functional indexes.

That would be nice, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the
good.  We don't have a lot of time here.

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-01-11 15:16:59
Subject: Re: [WIP] Double-write with Fast Checksums
Previous:From: Aidan Van DykDate: 2012-01-11 14:47:17
Subject: Re: [WIP] Double-write with Fast Checksums

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group