Well I would much prefer to find out sooner rather than later that there
is a problem, so I would much prefer know I've created a duplicate as
soon as the system can detect it. In general, Postgresql appears much
better at this than MySQL
On 09/03/13 10:01, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
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.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
