On 03/05/2014 12:01 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:53:31AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I think we also have to break out how much of the feeling that JSONB is
not ready is because of problems with the core/contrib split, and how
much of it is because of the type itself. I am suggesting that
core/contrib split problems are not symptomatic of data type problems,
and if address/address the core/contrib split issue, the data type might
be just fine.
Splitting out jsonb to an extension is going to be moderately
painful. The json and jsonb functions share some code that's not
exposed (and probably shouldn't be). It's not likely to be less
painful than implementing the hstore GIN/GIST ops for jsonb, I
suspect the reverse.
OK, that's good information. So we have JSONB which ties to a core
type, JSON, _and_ to a contrib module, hstore. No wonder it is so
complex.
Well, "ties to" is a loose term. It's hstore in these patches that
depends on jsonb - necessarily since we can't have core code depend on
an extension.
I am warming up to the idea of moving hstore internals into core,
sharing that with JSONB, and having contrib/hstore just call the core
functions when defining its data type.
Right, at least the parts they need in common. That's how I'd handle the
GIN/GIST ops, for example.
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
