| From: | "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Ryan Pedela <rpedela(at)datalanche(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Generalized JSON output functions |
| Date: | 2015-07-12 08:29:52 |
| Message-ID: | CACACo5RwrnmU1djhLgVv_PhHHJ-j4K0qsppdshFDCA5a33Az+g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 11, 2015 8:41 PM, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> There is simple rule - be strict on output and tolerant on input. If I
understand to sense of this patch - the target is one same format of JSON
documents - so there are no space for any variability.
So, would you prefer explain json format on a single line - no indentation
or whitespace whatsoever?
This far it was only about whitespace, but it can be useful for tweaking
other aspects of output, as I've mentioned before.
I can imagine the ability for 3rd-party code to override certain aspects of
the output would be really useful for extensions or background workers,
decoding plugins, etc.
> I am thinking so general json functions has sense, but I partially
disagree with your implementation.
Then what would you differently exactly?
--
Alex
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yaroslav | 2015-07-12 08:59:07 | A little RLS oversight? |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-07-12 03:53:30 | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |