Re: JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ?
От | Merlin Moncure |
---|---|
Тема | Re: JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHyXU0zzxEV93CvMUuSP7Tn+j9GEqdYj=XjxcU2YaZ+WO-mf5A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ? (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Joey Adams <joeyadams3.14159@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com> >> > wrote: >> >> Hi hackers >> >> >> >> After playing around with array_to_json() and row_to_json() functions a >> >> bit it I have a question - why do we even have 2 variants *_to_json() >> > >> > Here's the discussion where that decision was made: >> > >> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-01/msg01339.php >> > >> > To quote: >> > >> >>>> why not call all these functions 'to_json' and overload them? >> >>> >> >>> I don't honestly feel that advances clarity much. And we might want to >> >>> overload each at some stage with options that are specific to the datum >> >>> type. We have various foo_to_xml() functions now. >> >> >> >> -1 >> >> >> >> older proposal is more consistent with xml functions >> > >> > The most compelling argument I see here is the one about options >> > specific to the datum type. >> >> I don't find that to be particularly compelling at all. to_timestamp >> for example supports multiple argument versions depending on the input >> type. >> >> > * If the JSON type does not yet support, say, converting from a >> > number, it will be apparent from the names and types of the functions, >> > rather than being a hidden surprise. On the other hand, array_to_json >> > and composite_to_json already convert ANY values to JSON, so this >> > doesn't matter, anyway. > > > > I am away from base on a consulting assignment all this week, so my > connectivity and time are severely limited, and I don't have time to respond > in depth. > > Let me just point out two things. First, we are approaching a beta release. > The time for changing this is long since gone, IMNSHO. sure. pedantic philosophical arguments aside, I'm already using the api heavily and would prefer not to see it changed :-). merlin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: