From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: json (b) and null fields |
Date: | 2014-09-29 20:38:57 |
Message-ID: | 5429C361.7060906@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/29/2014 04:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 09/29/2014 04:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> More to the point, the way to fix any concerns about double parsing is to
>>> create row_to_jsonb(), not to plaster a bunch of options on row_to_json().
>> row_to_jsonb would be completely redundant with to_jsonb() in my recent
>> patch.
> Right, which raises the question of whether we shouldn't just be
> deprecating both array_to_json() and row_to_json()...
>
>> And I don't want to add options like this there for the same reasons I
>> didn't want them in row_to_json().
> Agreed. IMO the place to have put the "pretty" functionality was in some
> sort of json-to-text conversion function; it never belonged in an input
> conversion function.
>
>
Yes, if we had pretty printing functions we could deprecate and
eventually remove row_to_json and array_to_json. That's probably worth
putting on the TODO list.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-09-29 20:40:35 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE} |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-09-29 20:35:12 | Re: open items for 9.4 |