| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
| Date: | 2014-03-04 05:05:06 |
| Message-ID: | 53155F02.8030105@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/03/2014 11:20 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> Also, please recognize that the current implementation was what we
>> collectively decided on three months ago, and what Andrew worked pretty
>> hard to implement based on that collective decision. So if we're going
>> to change course, we need a specific reason to change course, not just
>> "it seems like a better idea now" or "I wasn't paying attention then".
> I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. But if it does, what
> exactly am I insisting on that is inconsistent with that consensus? In
> what way are we changing course? I think I'm being eminently flexible.
> I don't want a jsonb type that is broken, as for example by not having
> a default B-Tree operator class. Why don't you let me get on with it?
>
You're welcome to submit any code you like. We haven't been secret about
where the code lives. Nobody is stopping you.
What you're not welcome to do, from my POV, is move jsonb into the
hstore extension. I strenuously object to any such plan.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-03-04 05:06:09 | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-03-04 04:59:02 | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |