On 06/11/2013 12:07 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: >> Well, if we have to break backwards compatibility when we try to do >> binary storage, we're not going to be happy either. So I think we'd >> better have a plan in mind for what will happen then. > Who says we're ever going to do any such thing? This was extensively > debated when we added the original type, and I thought that it was > agreed that we might ultimately need both a type that stored JSON as > text and another that stored it as binary. This is where the compatibility comes in - we do want both to accept the same textual format. > And we might need an > XML-binary type as well. But there are also cases where storing the > data as text is *better*, Then use text :) > and I don't see us ever getting rid of that. While JSON is a "serialisation format" most things people want to used it for are actually structured types, not their serialisation to text. The serialisation should happen automatically.
-- Hannu Krosing PostgreSQL Consultant Performance, Scalability and High Availability 2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
