| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: additional json functionality |
| Date: | 2013-11-18 14:41:13 |
| Message-ID: | 528A2709.9020209@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/18/2013 09:38 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> I don't think any name that doesn't begin with "json" is acceptable. I could
>> live with "jsonb". It has the merit of brevity, but maybe it's a tad too
>> close to "json" to be the right answer.
> I think that seems right. Couple thoughts:
>
> *) Aside from the text in and out routines, how is 'jsbonb' different
> from the coming 'nested hstore'? Enough to justify two code bases?
The discussion has been around making a common library that would be
used for both.
>
> *) How much of the existing json API has to be copied over to the
> jsonb type and how exactly is that going to happen? For example, I
> figure we'd need a "record_to_jsonb" etc. for sure, but do we also
> need a jsonb_each()...can't we overload instead?
Overloading is what I was planning to do.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-11-18 14:44:01 | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
| Previous Message | Ian Lawrence Barwick | 2013-11-18 14:39:42 | Review: pre-commit triggers |