On 09-12-2013 13:12, Merlin Moncure wrote: > This is pretty neat. Couple minor questions: > *) Aren't you *en*coding data into json, not the other way around (decoding?) > Yes. The 'decoding' came from the functionality (logical decoding) and because the POC plugin is named 'test_decoding'. I also think that 'json_decoding' doesn't say much about the module purpose. I confess that I don't like the name but can't come up with a good name. Maybe 'wal2json' or 'logrep2json'? Could you suggest something?
> *) Consider generating a long bytea instead of explicitly writing a > 32kb sql into the patch. > I'll consider for next version. > *) You've built your own json serializer here. Maybe some code can be > shared with the json type? > Same here. I already took a look at the json datatype but decided that I wouldn't mess up with the backend code before have a feedback in the general idea. > *) Consider removing 'plugin ' from the name of the plugin. > --plugin=json_decoding etc. > 'plugin' was a tentative to produce an unique name (it sucks but...). -- Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/ PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
