Re: [BUGS] BUG #12070: hstore extension: hstore_to_json_loose produces invalid JSON
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [BUGS] BUG #12070: hstore extension: hstore_to_json_loose produces invalid JSON |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9580.1417365900@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] BUG #12070: hstore extension: hstore_to_json_loose produces invalid JSON (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [BUGS] BUG #12070: hstore extension: hstore_to_json_loose
produces invalid JSON
Re: [BUGS] BUG #12070: hstore extension: hstore_to_json_loose produces invalid JSON |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > what do you want to do about this? In the back branches, exposing a > function like this would be an API change, wouldn't it? Perhaps there we > just need to pick up the 100 lines or so involved from json.c and copy > them into hstore_io.c, suitably modified. In the development branch I > thing adding the function to the API is the best way. If we're going to do it by calling some newly-exposed function, I'd be inclined to fix it the same way in the back branches. Otherwise the discrepancy between the branches is a big back-patching hazard. (For instance, if we realize we need to fix a bug in the numeric-parsing code, what are the odds that we remember to fix hstore's additional copy in the back branches?) The "API break" isn't a big issue imo. The net effect would be that eg hstore 9.3.6 wouldn't work against a 9.3.5 server. We do that sort of thing *all the time* --- at least twice in the past year, according to a quick scan of the commit logs. If you were changing or removing a function that third-party code might depend on, it'd be problematic, but an addition has no such risk. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: