On Nov 15, 2013, at 6:35 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here are the options on the table: > 1) convert existing json type to binary flavor (notwithstanding objections) > 2) maintain side by side types, one representing binary, one text. > unfortunately, i think the text one must get the name 'json' due to > unfortunate previous decision. > 3) merge the behaviors into a single type and get the best of both > worlds (as suggested upthread). > > I think we need to take a *very* hard look at #3 before exploring #1 > or #2: Haven't through it through yet but it may be possible to handle > this in such a way that will be mostly transparent to the end user and > may have other benefits such as a faster path for serialization. If it’s possible to preserve order and still get the advantages of binary representation --- which are substantial (see http://theory.so/pg/2013/10/23/testing-nested-hstore/ and http://theory.so/pg/2013/10/25/indexing-nested-hstore/ for a couple of examples) --- without undue maintenance overhead, then great. I am completely opposed to duplicate key preservation in JSON, though. It has caused us a fair number of headaches at $work. Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
