Re: Should the JSON datatype be a specialization of text?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Joseph Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should the JSON datatype be a specialization of text?
Date: 2010-06-17 15:25:06
Message-ID: 4301.1276788306@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Joseph Adams
> <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> * No surprises when casting between JSON and TEXT. If approach B is
>> used, '"string"'::json would be '"string"', but '"string"'::json::text
>> would be 'string'.

> As far as I'm concerned, that's a non-starter. It should be legal to
> cast text to json, but what it should do is validate that the string
> is already legal JSON, not quote it as a string.

I'm not really convinced about that. It seems clear to me that there
are two behaviors that we'd like:

1. Take a string that is legal JSON, and make it into a JSON object.

2. Take an arbitrary string (or a number, a bool, etc) and make it a
literal value within a JSON object.

We can make one of these behaviors be invoked by a cast, and the other
by an explicit function call --- the question is which is which. I'm
inclined to think that associating #2 with casts might be better,
because clearly casting numerics or bools to JSON ought to act like #2.
If we do it as you suggest then casting text to JSON behaves differently
from casting anything else to JSON.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2010-06-17 15:30:39 Re: pg_dump does not honor namespaces when functions are used in index
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-06-17 15:08:20 Re: pg_dump does not honor namespaces when functions are used in index