Re: JSON for PG 9.2
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobDSv0a7X8fBe_RA3S2PSUSE6p=61H9iwpaOxq36EF7kA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: JSON for PG 9.2
Re: JSON for PG 9.2 Re: JSON for PG 9.2 Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > On mån, 2011-12-12 at 16:51 -0800, Peter van Hardenberg wrote: >> 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. > > You don't need a new PL to do that. The existing PLs can also parse > JSON. So that's not nearly enough of a reason to consider adding this > new PL. Just because all our languages are Turing-complete doesn't mean they are all equally well-suited to every task. Of course, that doesn't mean we'd add a whole new language just to get a JSON parser, but I don't think that's really what Peter was saying. Rather, I think the point is that embedded Javascript is *extremely* popular, lots and lots of people are supporting it, and we ought to seriously consider doing the same. It's hard to think of another PL that we could add that would give us anywhere near the bang for the buck that Javascript would. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: