From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 18:54:32 |
Message-ID: | 52EA9FE8.7000604@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/30/2014 01:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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?
>
I'm not. Above I suggested exactly that. I was simply opposed to Hannu's
suggestion that instead of making hstore refer to the adopted code we
maintain two copies of code that does essentially the same thing.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-01-30 19:03:21 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-01-30 18:52:55 | Re: pgindent behavior we could do without |