| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: additional json functionality |
| Date: | 2013-11-20 17:50:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HMnBpK=g2R=zydeXHPKk+dQfwHskVCcqc082tVAViu-PA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11/15/2013 04:00 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> > Looking at this a different way: could we just implement BSON and leave
> json
> > alone?
> >
> > http://bsonspec.org/
>
> In short? No.
>
> For one thing, our storage format is different from theirs (better,
> frankly), and as a result is not compliant with their "standard".
Not being super familiar with either BSON our JSONB what advantages are we
gaining from the difference?
It might be interesting if we supported the same binary representation so
we could have a binary send/recv routines that don't need to do any
serialization/deserialization. Especially since a standard format would
potentially be skipping the serialization/deserialization on both the
server and client.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-20 17:55:49 | WITH ORDINALITY versus column definition lists |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-11-20 17:45:23 | Re: -d option for pg_isready is broken |