From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
Date: | 2014-02-11 00:16:15 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0x4FxigqeOWwx7JdvCrRODoF8v1nK5tpUX64CkSUo=Nyw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> It works in enough cases atm that it's worthwile trying to keep it
> working. Sure, it could be better, but it's what we have right now. Atm
> it's e.g. the only realistic way to copy larger amounts of bytea between
> servers without copying the entire cluster.
That's the thing -- it might work today, but what about tomorrow?
We'd be sending the wrong signals. People start building processes
around all of this and now we've painted ourselves into a box. Better
in my mind to simply educate users that this practice is dangerous and
unsupported, as we used to do. I guess until now. It seems completely
odd to me that we're attaching a case to the jsonb type, in the wrong
way -- something that we've never attached to any other type before.
For example, why didn't we attach a version code to the json type send
function? Wasn't the whole point of this is that jsonb send/recv be
more spiritually closer to json? If we want to introduce alternative
type formats in the 9.5 cycle, why can't we attach version based
encoding handling to *that* problem?
The more angles I look at this from the more it looks messy and rushed.
Notwithstanding all the above, I figure here enough smart people
disagree (once again, heh) to call it consensus.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2014-02-11 00:17:31 | Re: dynamic shared memory and locks |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-02-10 23:52:51 | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |