Re: additional json functionality

On 11/20/2013 12:50 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com 
> <mailto:josh@agliodbs.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 11/15/2013 04:00 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>     > Looking at this a different way: could we just implement BSON
>     and leave json
>     > alone?
>     >
>     > http://bsonspec.org/
>
>     In short?  No.
>
>     For one thing, our storage format is different from theirs (better,
>     frankly), and as a result is not compliant with their "standard".
>
>
> Not being super familiar with either BSON our JSONB what advantages 
> are we gaining from the difference?
>
> It might be interesting if we supported the same binary representation 
> so we could have a binary send/recv routines that don't need to do any 
> serialization/deserialization. Especially since a standard format 
> would potentially be skipping the serialization/deserialization on 
> both the server and client.
>
>
>


To start with, it doesn't support arbitrary precision numerics. That 
means that right off the bat it's only accepting a subset of what the 
JSON spec allows. 'Nuff said, I think.

cheers

andrew