Re: JSON Patch for PostgreSQL - BSON Support?
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: JSON Patch for PostgreSQL - BSON Support? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4C68B4B4.4010300@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: JSON Patch for PostgreSQL - BSON Support? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: JSON Patch for PostgreSQL - BSON Support?
Re: JSON Patch for PostgreSQL - BSON Support? Re: JSON Patch for PostgreSQL - BSON Support? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/15/2010 11:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Charles Pritchard<chuck@jumis.com> writes: >> I'd originally sent this to Joseph Adams, as he has been working on >> adding a JSON datatype. >> I've suggested supporting BSON, as there are many client implementations >> available, > I knew there would be a lot of critters crawling out as soon as we > turned over this rock. Which other data-formats-of-the-week shall > we immortalize as core PG types? > > If BSON is simply in effect an efficient encoding of JSON, then it's not clear to me that we would want another type at all. Rather, we might want to consider storing the data in this supposedly more efficient format, and maybe also some conversion routines. I agree that we don't want in core a huge array of general serialization formats. The one thing that JSON has going for it for general use, in my view, is that, unlike hstore, the structure is not flat. That makes it potentially useful for various purposes, especially complex structured function arguments, in places where using hstore can be rather limiting, and xml overly verbose. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: