| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: JSON and unicode surrogate pairs |
| Date: | 2013-06-10 22:07:23 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ3xK-no3AnOFkJvegkYNLGbzp47ZsRC+F7RsqJnHCKBQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Well, if we have to break backwards compatibility when we try to do
> binary storage, we're not going to be happy either. So I think we'd
> better have a plan in mind for what will happen then.
Who says we're ever going to do any such thing? This was extensively
debated when we added the original type, and I thought that it was
agreed that we might ultimately need both a type that stored JSON as
text and another that stored it as binary. And we might need an
XML-binary type as well. But there are also cases where storing the
data as text is *better*, and I don't see us ever getting rid of that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-06-10 22:10:05 | Re: Freezing without write I/O |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2013-06-10 22:02:48 | Re: [PATCH] pgbench --throttle (submission 7 - with lag measurement) |