Re: JSON Patch for PostgreSQL - BSON Support?

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Charles Pritchard" <chuck(at)jumis(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: JSON Patch for PostgreSQL - BSON Support?
Date: 2010-08-16 22:02:47
Message-ID: 4C696F3702000025000346D1@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Charles Pritchard <chuck(at)jumis(dot)com> wrote:

> Storing internally as BSON (if it holds up to its premise) would
> mean more efficient traversal of internal objects in the future,
> if we were to have JSON-related functions/selectors.

How about the fact that not all JSON objects can be represented in
BSON (if the JSON object has a very long string), and not all BSON
objects can be represented in JSON (if the BSON object has an
array). Or do we invent our own flavors of one or both to cover the
mismatch?

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Hunsaker 2010-08-16 22:05:40 Re: Todays git migration results
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-08-16 21:24:23 Re: Return of the Solaris vacuum polling problem -- anyone remember this?