| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
| Date: | 2014-03-04 04:20:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRF6tLde-Z=icJd5OWySQ3HXi9400BRsugd6vrYit99Xg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> Also, please recognize that the current implementation was what we
> collectively decided on three months ago, and what Andrew worked pretty
> hard to implement based on that collective decision. So if we're going
> to change course, we need a specific reason to change course, not just
> "it seems like a better idea now" or "I wasn't paying attention then".
I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. But if it does, what
exactly am I insisting on that is inconsistent with that consensus? In
what way are we changing course? I think I'm being eminently flexible.
I don't want a jsonb type that is broken, as for example by not having
a default B-Tree operator class. Why don't you let me get on with it?
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2014-03-04 04:20:59 | Re: GSoC proposal - "make an unlogged table logged" |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-03-04 04:18:38 | Re: Patch: show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire |