On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote: >>> And if we add a new format version in 9.5 we need to make it discernible >>> from the 9.4 format. Without space for a format indicator we'd have to >>> resort to ugly tricks like defining the high bit in the first byte set >>> indicates the new version. I don't see the improvement here. > >> Point being: a 9.5 binary format reading server could look for a magic >> token in the beginning of the file which would indicate the presence >> of a header. The server could then make intelligent decisions about >> reading data inside the file which would be follow exactly the same >> kinds of decisions binary format consuming client code would make. >> Perhaps it would be a simple check on version, or something more >> complex that would involve a negotiation. The 'format' indicator, >> should version not be precise enough, needs to be in the header, not >> passed with every instance of the data type, and certainly not for one >> type in the absence of others. > > Basically, you want to move the goalposts to somewhere that's not only > out of reach today, but probably a few counties away from the stadium. > I don't see this happening at all frankly, because nobody has been > interested enough to work on something like it up to now. And I > definitely don't see it as appropriate to block improvement of jsonb > until this happens.
That's completely unfair. I'm arguing *not* to attach version dependency expectations to the jsonb type, at all, not the other way around. If you want to do that, fine, but do it *later* as in, 9.5, or beyond. I just gave an example of how binary format changes could be worked in later. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers