On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Christophe Pettus <x...@thebuild.com> wrote: > There was no technical reason that json couldn't have been an extension, > either, but there were very compelling presentational reasons to have it in > core. jsonb has exactly the same presentational issues.
There were also no compelling reasons why json should have been an extension. The two situations are not at all comparable. In any case, no author of this patch has proposed any solution to the casting problems described with using the jsonb type with the new (and existing) hstore operators. For that reason, I won't comment further on this until I hear a more concrete proposal. >> Yes, people who have the ability to block the feature entirely. I am >> attempting to build consensus by reaching a compromise that weighs >> everyone's concerns. > > The thing I still haven't heard is why jsonb in core is a bad idea, except > that it is too much code. Is that the objection? I suspect that it's going to be considered odd to have code in core that considers compatibility with earlier versions of hstore, back when it was an extension, with calling stub functions, for one thing. Having hstore be almost but not quite in core may be seen as a contortion. Is that really the conversation you'd prefer to have at this late stage? In any case, as I say, if that's the patch that Andres or Oleg or Teodor really want to submit, then by all means let them submit it. I maintain that the *current* state of affairs, where jsonb isn't sure if it's in core or is an extension will not fly. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
