| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
| Date: | 2014-02-28 20:29:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0xcaHqHCUdWkY3vzKN0cR7Q6TpFvx7=4Wv3n7=Tch58CA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Well, the jsonb portion of this is arguably the most ready, certainly it's
> had a lot more on-list review.
That is definitely true. Also, the jsonb type does not introduce any
new patterns that are not already covered by json -- it just does some
things better/faster (and, in a couple of cases, a bit differently) so
there's a safe harbor. The implicit casts snuck in after the review
started -- that was a mistake obviously (but mostly with hstore). The
side argument of 'to extension or not' is just that. Make a decision
and commit this thing.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-02-28 21:03:02 | Re: jsonb and nested hstore |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2014-02-28 20:24:34 | Re: extension_control_path |