| From: | Mitar <mmitar(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Relaxing NaN/Infinity restriction in JSON fields |
| Date: | 2019-05-08 17:11:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAKLmikP7PgKUC8a-J7bOiZC48zifFC_5KhuaKqyqrC-aJBFV7A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi!
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 6:09 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> If you want to complain about JSON, it's IETF that you need to talk
> about, not us -- we're just implementing their spec. As for storing the
> numbers in a database, you can already do that, just not on the JSON
> datatype.
Yes, I see why then so many implement variations on JSON, like BSON
and stuff. So that they can have mostly compatible structure, but with
all floats and datetime structure.
What are thoughts of adding something like that? PgJSON variant. :-)
Mitar
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | neeraj kumar | 2019-05-08 17:42:12 | Re: Query on pg_stat_activity table got stuck |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Schneider | 2019-05-08 16:54:59 | Re: PostgreSQL on Amazon RDS |