Re: additional json functionality

On 11/18/2013 09:38 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> I don't think any name that doesn't begin with "json" is acceptable. I could
>> live with "jsonb". It has the merit of brevity, but maybe it's a tad too
>> close to "json" to be the right answer.
> I think that seems right.  Couple thoughts:
>
> *) Aside from the text in and out routines, how is 'jsbonb' different
> from the coming 'nested hstore'?   Enough to justify two code bases?

The discussion has been around making a common library that would be 
used for both.


>
> *) How much of the existing json API has to be copied over to the
> jsonb type and how exactly is that going to happen?  For example, I
> figure we'd need a "record_to_jsonb" etc. for sure, but do we also
> need a jsonb_each()...can't we overload instead?


Overloading is what I was planning to do.


cheers

andrew