| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
| Date: | 2014-01-30 18:50:25 |
| Message-ID: | 4062.1391107825@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 01/30/2014 01:03 PM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> On 01/30/2014 06:45 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> We'd have to move that code from hstore to jsonb_support.c and then
>>> make hstore refer to it.
>> Or just copy it and leave hstore alone - the code duplication is not
>> terribly huge here and hstore might still want to develop independently.
> We have gone to great deal of trouble to make jsonb and nested hstore
> more or less incarnations of the same thing. The new hstore relies
> heavily on the new jsonb. So what you're suggesting is the opposite of
> what's been developed these last months.
If so, why would you be resistant to pushing more code out of hstore
and into jsonb?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-01-30 18:50:49 | Review: tests for client programs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-30 18:46:34 | Re: pgindent behavior we could do without |