From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> |
Cc: | Joey Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Initial Review: JSON contrib modul was: Re: Another swing at JSON |
Date: | 2011-07-22 23:19:17 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZjHL1POpt78fsQYXNDcNrktGxkDChNWEX27x9EXGzc5Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> wrote:
> On 23/07/11 01:12, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Joey Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On another matter, should the JSON type guard against duplicate member
>>> keys? The JSON RFC says "The names within an object SHOULD be
>>> unique," meaning JSON with duplicate members can be considered valid.
>>> JavaScript interpreters (the ones I tried), PHP, and Python all have
>>> the same behavior: discard the first member in favor of the second.
>>> That is, {"key":1,"key":2} becomes {"key":2}. The XML type throws an
>>> error if a duplicate attribute is present (e.g. '<a href="b"
>>> href="c"/>'::xml).
>>
>> Hmm. That's tricky. I lean mildly toward throwing an error as being
>> more consistent with the general PG philosophy.
>
> OTOH:
>
> regression=# select 'key=>1,key=>2'::hstore;
> hstore
> ------------
> "key"=>"1"
> (1 row)
Fair point.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc Munro | 2011-07-22 23:20:27 | Dropping extensions |
Previous Message | Jan Urbański | 2011-07-22 23:16:10 | Re: Initial Review: JSON contrib modul was: Re: Another swing at JSON |