Re: JSON for PG 9.2

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Rather, I think the
> point is that embedded Javascript is *extremely* popular, lots and
> lots of people are supporting it, and we ought to seriously consider
> doing the same.  It's hard to think of another PL that we could add
> that would give us anywhere near the bang for the buck that Javascript
> would.

+1 to that.

I'm not a huge fan of JS; wish that one of the Scheme variations had
"made it" instead.

But it's clear that a LOT of fairly successful work has gone into
making JS implementations performant, and it's clearly heavily used.
JS+hstore would probably draw in a bunch of users, and tempt them to
the "SQL dark side" :-).

Wanting a JSON processor isn't quite a good enough reason to add C++
support in order to draw in a JS interpreter. But I don't imagine
things are restricted to just 1 JS implementation, and JSON isn't the
only reason to do so.
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"