On 11/18/2013 09:38 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
I don't think any name that doesn't begin with "json" is acceptable. I could
live with "jsonb". It has the merit of brevity, but maybe it's a tad too
close to "json" to be the right answer.
I think that seems right. Couple thoughts:
*) Aside from the text in and out routines, how is 'jsbonb' different
from the coming 'nested hstore'? Enough to justify two code bases?
The discussion has been around making a common library that would be
used for both.
*) How much of the existing json API has to be copied over to the
jsonb type and how exactly is that going to happen? For example, I
figure we'd need a "record_to_jsonb" etc. for sure, but do we also
need a jsonb_each()...can't we overload instead?
Overloading is what I was planning to do.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
