Hannu Krosing escribió: > On 03/08/2013 09:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:48 PM, David E. Wheeler <da...@justatheory.com> > >wrote: > >>In the spirit of being liberal about what we accept but strict about what > >>we store, it seems to me that JSON object key uniqueness should be enforced > >>either by throwing an error on duplicate keys, or by flattening so that the > >>latest key wins (as happens in JavaScript). I realize that tracking keys > >>will slow parsing down, and potentially make it more memory-intensive, but > >>such is the price for correctness. > >I'm with Andrew. That's a rathole I emphatically don't want to go > >down. I wrote this code originally, and I had the thought clearly in > >mind that I wanted to accept JSON that was syntactically well-formed, > >not JSON that met certain semantic constraints. > > If it does not meet these "semantic" constraints, then it is not > really JSON - it is merely JSON-like. > > this sounds very much like MySQLs decision to support timestamp > "0000-00-00 00:00" - syntactically correct, but semantically wrong.
Is it wrong? The standard cited says SHOULD, not MUST. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
