| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter van Hardenberg <pvh(at)pvh(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Joseph Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |
| Date: | 2011-12-13 05:25:59 |
| Message-ID: | 1323753959.20924.17.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On mån, 2011-12-12 at 16:51 -0800, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
> Because we haven't heard from him in a while we've been using PL/V8 to
> validate a JSON datatype simulated by a DOMAIN with a simple
> acceptance function. (See below.) This is not ideally performant but
> thanks to V8's JIT the JSON parser is actually reasonably good.
>
> I think releasing something simple and non-performant with reasonable
> semantics would be the best next step. If it were up to me, I'd
> probably even try to just land PL/V8 as PL/JavaScript for 9.2 if the
> crash bugs and deal breakers can be sifted out.
You don't need a new PL to do that. The existing PLs can also parse
JSON. So that's not nearly enough of a reason to consider adding this
new PL.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-12-13 05:43:48 | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-12-13 05:22:29 | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |