On 11/14/2013 01:32 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 3:59 PM, Hannu Krosing <ha...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>> I remember strong voices in support of *not* normalising json, so that
>> things like
>>
>> {"a":1,"a":true, "a":"b", "a":none}
>>
>> would go through the system unaltered, for claimed standard usage of
>> json as
>> "processing instructions". That is as source code which can possibly
>> converted
>> to JavaScript Object and not something that would come out of
>> serialising of
>> any existing JavaScript Object.
> My recollection from PGCon was that there was consensus to normalize on
> the way in --
Great news! I remember advocating this approach in the mailing lists
but having been out-voted based on "current real-world usage out there" :)
> or at least, if we switched to a binary representation as proposed by
> Oleg & Teodor, it was not worth the hassle to try to keep it.
Very much agree. For the source code approach I'd recommend
text type with maybe a check that it is possible to convert it to json.
--
Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Consultant
Performance, Scalability and High Availability
2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
