Re: JSON for PG 9.2

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr
Cc: Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joey Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Claes Jakobsson <claes(at)gluefinance(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2
Date: 2011-12-18 17:17:45
Message-ID: CAHyXU0zAL+fPi71XFfsgMyEBgX-JFbuYYJ2QQub1sVZh1A1UvQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
<dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:> to add some confusion on the
implementation choice, because it
> looks damn too easy now… Guile 2.0 offers an implementation of the> ECMAscript language and plscheme already exists as a PostgreSQL PL> extension for integrating with Guile.

TBH, I think that's PFC (pretty cool).
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> We can hopefully get around this for the extensions in contrib (and
> reasonably well has already), but few large companies are going to be
> happy to go to pgxn and download an extension that has a single
> maintainer (not "the team", and in most cases not even "a team"),
> usually no defined lifecycle, no support, etc. (I'm pretty sure you
> won't get support included for random pgxn modules when you buy a
> contract from EDB, or CMD, or us, or PGX, or anybody really - wheras
> if it the datatype is in core, you *will* get this)

100% agree on all points. with the new extension system, contrib
modules that are packaged with the core system can be considered to be
in core because they are:
*) documented in standard docs
*) supported and bugfixed with postgresql releases
*) ready to be used without compiler support or even shell access
through most binary distributions

One small note about the json type being an extension -- this probably
means the json type oid won't be fixed -- not a huge deal but it could
affect some corner cases with binary format consumers.

merlin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2011-12-18 17:21:24 Re: JSON for PG 9.2
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2011-12-18 16:56:33 Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf