Re: jsonb and nested hstore

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> Also, please recognize that the current implementation was what we
>> collectively decided on three months ago, and what Andrew worked pretty
>> hard to implement based on that collective decision. So if we're going
>> to change course, we need a specific reason to change course, not just
>> "it seems like a better idea now" or "I wasn't paying attention then".
>
> I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. But if it does, what
> exactly am I insisting on that is inconsistent with that consensus? In
> what way are we changing course? I think I'm being eminently flexible.
> I don't want a jsonb type that is broken, as for example by not having
> a default B-Tree operator class. Why don't you let me get on with it?

An excellent question. This thread has become mostly about whether
someone (like, say, me, or in this case Peter) is attempting to pull
the rug out from under a previously-agreed consensus path forward.
But despite my asking, nobody's been able to provide a pointer to any
previous discussion of the points under debate. That's because the
points that are *actually* being debated here were not discussed
previously. I recognize that Josh and Andrew would like to make that
the fault of the people who are now raising objections, but it doesn't
work like that. The fact that people were and are *generally* in
favor of jsonb and hstore doesn't mean they have to like the way that
the patches have turned out.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company