Re: JSON for PG 9.2
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4EE6AC02.70709@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 (Peter van Hardenberg <pvh@pvh.ca>) |
Ответы |
Re: JSON for PG 9.2
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/12/2011 07:51 PM, Peter van Hardenberg wrote: > We reached out to Joseph to see if we could help sponsor the project, > but never really heard back from him. > > Because we haven't heard from him in a while we've been using PL/V8 to > validate a JSON datatype simulated by a DOMAIN with a simple > acceptance function. (See below.) This is not ideally performant but > thanks to V8's JIT the JSON parser is actually reasonably good. > > I think releasing something simple and non-performant with reasonable > semantics would be the best next step. If it were up to me, I'd > probably even try to just land PL/V8 as PL/JavaScript for 9.2 if the > crash bugs and deal breakers can be sifted out. > > PL/V8 is fast, it's sandboxed, and while it doesn't provide GIN or > GIST operators out of the box, maybe those could be motivated by its > inclusion. > > Andrew, you've been down in the guts here, what do you think? The trouble with using JSON.parse() as a validator is that it's probably doing way too much work. PLV8 is cool, and I keep trying to get enough time to work on it more, but I don't think it's a substitute for a JSON type with a purpose built validator and some native operations. I think these efforts can continue in parallel. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: