| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joseph Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Charles Pritchard <chuck(at)jumis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: JSON Patch for PostgreSQL - BSON Support? |
| Date: | 2010-08-17 02:48:25 |
| Message-ID: | 28590.1282013305@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joseph Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Others already mentioned that you can't convert 2 billion byte long
> JSON strings to BSON. Another issue is that BSON cannot encode all
> JSON numbers without precision loss.
As somebody already mentioned, the former isn't likely to be an issue
for us anytime in the foreseeable future, because we can't push around
datum values more than 1GB large anyhow. The latter seems like a pretty
nasty problem though.
I'm good with just dropping this idea for the moment. The Google hit
statistics that were cited earlier show that there's not enough interest
in BSON to justify a separate datatype, which is what it would
apparently need to be.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-17 02:58:45 | Re: security label support, part.2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-17 02:40:39 | Re: refactoring comment.c |