Re: json (b) and null fields

2014-09-29 17:38 GMT+02:00 Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>:

> * Andrew Dunstan (andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net) wrote:
> > That said, doing this as an extension is probably a good way to go,
> > as I suggested upthread, since we could then make it available for
> > 9.4, rather than making people wait until 9.5.
>
> Two points on this- having it in 9.5 doesn't preclude someone from
> extracting it into an extension for 9.4 (indeed, that makes it far more
> likely for such an extension to actually happen, imv..), and having it
> in core means it's actually generally available and a function which can
> be depended upon, which is far from the case for an extension. Things
> are a bit better if it's in contrib, though we'd want to have more than
> one function provided in such a contrib extension.
>

+1

Pavel

>
> Perhaps there are other functions related to JSON which should go into
> such a contrib extension which would make it more worthwhile.. Would
> hate to have an extension that ends up being "yeah, to actually use
> JSON in PG you have to have this extension" either though.
>
> I realize that can possibly be a "slippery slope", where we end up with
> more in core than really belongs there, but this strikes me as a common
> enough case that we should cover it. If I didn't feel it would be a
> frequently used capability, I wouldn't have supported adding it in the
> first place..
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen
>