On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 2:40:49PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: > Should we see about making a more flexible serialization > infrastructure? What we have is mostly /ad hoc/, and has already > caused real pain to the PostGIS folks, this even after some pretty > significant and successful efforts were made in this direction.
Hi all. Is anybody working on this right now? I would like to pick this task for the summer. First of all, what do you think about what David said? Should we try and design a generic infrastructure for similar serialization datatypes? If so, will we need to refactor some pieces from the JSON/XML implementation? I looked over the code and it seems nicely decoupled, but I am not sure what this would involve. I've done this before for MySQL[1] (not yet completed), but I'd love to try it for PostgreSQL too. On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:23:11AM -0700, José Luis Tallón wrote: > Have you investigated JSONB vs ProtoBuf space usage ? > (the key being the "B" -- Postgres' own binary JSON > implementation) This is something I can further investigate, but another (possibly major) benefit of the Protocol Buffers over JSON is that they *still* have a schema. I think they combine advantages from both structured and schemaless data. My best guess is that we shouldn't focus on abstracting *any* serialization paradigm, but only the ones that have a schema (like Thrift or Protocol Buffers). Speaking of schemas, where is the best place to keep that? For MySQL I opted for a plain text file similar to .trg files (the ones used by MySQL for keeping triggers). I'd love to talk more about this. Thank you. Flavius Anton [1] https://github.com/google/mysql-protobuf -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers