From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter van Hardenberg <pvh(at)pvh(dot)ca> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Joseph Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |
Date: | 2011-12-13 01:36:02 |
Message-ID: | 4EE6AC02.70709@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/12/2011 07:51 PM, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
> We reached out to Joseph to see if we could help sponsor the project,
> but never really heard back from him.
>
> Because we haven't heard from him in a while we've been using PL/V8 to
> validate a JSON datatype simulated by a DOMAIN with a simple
> acceptance function. (See below.) This is not ideally performant but
> thanks to V8's JIT the JSON parser is actually reasonably good.
>
> I think releasing something simple and non-performant with reasonable
> semantics would be the best next step. If it were up to me, I'd
> probably even try to just land PL/V8 as PL/JavaScript for 9.2 if the
> crash bugs and deal breakers can be sifted out.
>
> PL/V8 is fast, it's sandboxed, and while it doesn't provide GIN or
> GIST operators out of the box, maybe those could be motivated by its
> inclusion.
>
> Andrew, you've been down in the guts here, what do you think?
The trouble with using JSON.parse() as a validator is that it's probably
doing way too much work. PLV8 is cool, and I keep trying to get enough
time to work on it more, but I don't think it's a substitute for a JSON
type with a purpose built validator and some native operations. I think
these efforts can continue in parallel.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Farina | 2011-12-13 01:37:13 | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |
Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-12-13 01:09:49 | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |