On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 3:03 AM, Ryan Pedela <rped...@datalanche.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> >> >> On 05/20/2015 09:16 AM, Shulgin, Oleksandr wrote: >> > >> >> >Attached is a patch against master to generalize the JSON-producing >> >> >functions in utils/adt/json.c and to provide a set of callbacks which >> can >> >> >be overridden the same way that is already provided for *parsing* >> JSON. >> > >> >> I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but it sure seems like a lot of >> >> changes, and moderately invasive ones, to support something that could >> be >> >> done, at the cost of reparsing, with a simple loadable extension that I >> >> could create in a few hours of programming. >> > >> > But this seems like a pretty reasonable change to make, no? Doesn't the >> > total amount of code decrease after this patch? JSON stuff is pretty >> > new so some refactoring and generalization of what we have is to be >> > expected. >> >> Yeah. Also, there have been a few previous gripes about this, for >> example, >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cahbvmpzs+svr+y-ugxjrq+xw4dqtevl-cozc69zffwmxjck...@mail.gmail.com >> . >> As noted, I definitely prefer 'space free' by default for efficiency >> reasons, but standardizing the output has definitely got to be a >> reasonable goal. >> > > Every JSON implementation I have ever used defaults to the minified > version of JSON (no whitespace) when printed. > Hashing of arrays seems to be an important issue: we'd rather make sure to produce the same output in every code path. That would also mean: no special logic to add the line feeds in json_agg either. Is it reasonable to add this patch to CommitFest now? -- Alex
