From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Generalized JSON output functions |
Date: | 2015-05-22 16:51:29 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0zozNhzrPJXL9F1k63XtgUaUvZZs7051CxJkvJznEjXqw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> On 05/20/2015 09:16 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote:
>
>> >Attached is a patch against master to generalize the JSON-producing
>> >functions in utils/adt/json.c and to provide a set of callbacks which can
>> >be overridden the same way that is already provided for *parsing* JSON.
>
>> I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but it sure seems like a lot of
>> changes, and moderately invasive ones, to support something that could be
>> done, at the cost of reparsing, with a simple loadable extension that I
>> could create in a few hours of programming.
>
> But this seems like a pretty reasonable change to make, no? Doesn't the
> total amount of code decrease after this patch? JSON stuff is pretty
> new so some refactoring and generalization of what we have is to be
> expected.
Yeah. Also, there have been a few previous gripes about this, for
example, http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHbVmPzS+sVR+y-UgxjRq+XW4dqteVL-cOzc69zFFwmxjcKCxg@mail.gmail.com.
As noted, I definitely prefer 'space free' by default for efficiency
reasons, but standardizing the output has definitely got to be a
reasonable goal.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-05-22 17:50:21 | Re: Issues in Replication Progress Tracking |
Previous Message | Shulgin, Oleksandr | 2015-05-22 16:45:52 | Re: pg_dump quietly ignore missing tables - is it bug? |