On 02/26/2014 09:43 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why can't this whole thing be shipped as an extension? It might well
be more convenient to have the whole thing packaged as an extension
than to have parts of it in core and parts of it not in core.
That's a good question. I think having everything in contrib would
make it easier to resolve the disconnect between jsonb and hstore. As
things stand, there is a parallel set of functions and operators for
hstore and jsonb, with the former set much larger than the latter. I'm
not terribly happy with that.
The jsonb set will get larger as time goes on. I don't think either of
you are thinking very clearly about how we would do this. Extensions
can't call each other's code. So the whole notion we have here of
sharing the tree-ish data representation and a lot of the C API would go
out the window, unless you want to shoehorn jsonb into hstore. Frankly,
we'll look silly with json as a core type and the more capable jsonb not.
Not to mention that if at this stage people suddenly decide we should
change direction on a course that has been very publicly discussed over
quite a considerable period, and for which Teodor and I and others have
put in a great deal of work, I at least am going to be extremely annoyed
(note the characteristic Australian used of massive understatement.)
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
