From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: JSON Patch for PostgreSQL - BSON Support? |
Date: | 2010-08-17 00:57:41 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimNae1UhxiEewMzVAj+7eMEiq8bwSQ08v9w3kYX@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> but BSON pidgenholes numeric values to either double, int32, int64, or
>> a 12-byte MongoDB Object ID. Thus, for people who expect JSON to be
>> able to hold arbitrary-precision numbers (which the JSON data type in
>> my patch can), using BSON for transfer or storage will violate that
>> expectation.
>
> Good lord. I'd suggest that maybe we wait for BSON v. 2.0 instead.
>
> Is BSON even any kind of a standard?
You know that if it were a standard, it would be WORSE!
:-)
This falls into big time "no way!"
If there was a standardized binary encoding for XML that was
effectively a tree (e.g. - more or less like a set of Lisp objects
with CAR/CDR linkages), that would be somewhat interesting, as it
could be both comparatively compact, and perhaps offer rapid
navigation through the tree. BSON doesn't sound like that!
--
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-08-17 00:59:23 | Re: refactoring comment.c |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-08-17 00:53:54 | Re: Writeable CTEs Desgin Doc on Wiki |