| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
| Date: | 2014-03-06 15:46:47 |
| Message-ID: | 11508.1394120807@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> However, if the new hstore type (compatible with the old one) is the
> wrapper around jsonb, rather than the other way around, I don't see any
> problem with it at all. Most future users are almost certainly going to use
> the json interfaces, but we don't want to leave upgraded users behind. (But
> of course it has to actually maintain backwards compatibility for that
> argument to hold)
Yeah --- all of this turns on whether hstore improvements can be 100%
upwards compatible or not. If they are, I don't object to including them;
I'd have said it was wasted effort, but if the work is already done then
that's moot.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-03-06 16:09:12 | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2014-03-06 15:37:22 | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |