Hi!
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 6:09 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> If you want to complain about JSON, it's IETF that you need to talk
> about, not us -- we're just implementing their spec. As for storing the
> numbers in a database, you can already do that, just not on the JSON
> datatype.
Yes, I see
On 2019-May-07, Mitar wrote:
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 1:21 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > There is not, and never has been, any claim that JSON numbers correspond
> > to the IEEE spec.
>
> There is note [1], but yes, it does not claim that nor I claimed that.
> I am just saying that the reality is that
Hi!
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 1:21 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Getting us to deviate from the RFC so blatantly would be a very hard sell.
> A large part of the point of the JSON datatype is to be interoperable;
> once you give that up you may as well use some not-standard-at-all
> representation.
Python s
Mitar writes:
> When migrating from MongoDB to PostgreSQL one thing which just
> surprised me now is that I cannot store NaN/Infinity in JSON fields. I
> know that standard JSON restricts those values, but they are a very
> common (and welcome) relaxation. What are prospects of this
> restriction
Hi!
When migrating from MongoDB to PostgreSQL one thing which just
surprised me now is that I cannot store NaN/Infinity in JSON fields. I
know that standard JSON restricts those values, but they are a very
common (and welcome) relaxation. What are prospects of this
restriction being lifted? It is
