Re: jsonb and nested hstore

On 02/05/2014 11:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>>> The whole reason we have jsonb is to avoid reparsing where possible
>> Sure; but on the server side. The wire format is for handling client
>> concerns. For example, the case you're arguing for would be for libpq
>> client to extract as jsonb as binary, manipulate it on a binary level,
>> then send it back as binary. I find this case to be something of a
>> stretch.
> I'm with Merlin in thinking that the case for exposing a binary format
> to clients is pretty weak, or at least a convincing use-case has not
> been shown. Given the concerns upthread about security hazards in the
> patch's existing recv code, and the fact that it's already February,
> switching to "binary is the same as text" may well be the most prudent
> path here.
>
>

If we do that we're going to have to live with that forever, aren't we?
I don't see why there should be a convincing case for binary format for
nested hstore but not for jsonb.

If it were only for arbitrary libpq clietns I wouldn't bother so much.
To me the main case for binary format is that some people use COPY
BINARY for efficiency reasons, and I heard tell recently of someone
working on that as an option for pg_dump, which seems to me worth
considering.

cheers

andrew