Re: jsonb and nested hstore

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> wrote:
>> The only problem with that is now you have to move the implementation
>> of ||, plus a bunch of other hstore operators into core. That seems
>> like a more difficult direction to move in from a practical
>> perspective, and I'm not sure that you won't hit a snag elsewhere.
>
> Implementing operators for new types in PostgreSQL is pretty well-trod ground. I really don't know what snags we might hit.

I don't find that very reassuring.

>> I suppose that putting it in core would be slightly preferable
>> given the strategic importance of jsonb, but it's not something that
>> I'd weigh too highly.
> I'm completely unsure how to parse the idea that something is strategically important but we shouldn't put it in core. If json was important enough to make it into core, jsonb certainly is.

That is completely orthogonal to everything I've said. To be clear:
I'm not suggesting that we don't put jsonb in core because it's not
important enough - it has nothing to do with that whatsoever - and
besides, I don't understand why an extension is seen as not befitting
of a more important feature.

> Honestly, I really don't understand the resistance to putting jsonb in core. There are missing operators, yes; that's a very straight-forward hole to plug.

You are basically suggesting putting all of hstore in core, because
jsonb and hstore are approximately the same thing. That seem quite a
bit more controversial than putting everything in the hstore
extension. I doubt that you can reasonably take any half measure
between those two extremes, and one seems a lot less controversial
than the other. This patch already seems controversial enough to me.
It's as simple as that.

--
Peter Geoghegan