On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> but BSON pidgenholes numeric values to either double, int32, int64, or >> a 12-byte MongoDB Object ID. Thus, for people who expect JSON to be >> able to hold arbitrary-precision numbers (which the JSON data type in >> my patch can), using BSON for transfer or storage will violate that >> expectation. > > Good lord. I'd suggest that maybe we wait for BSON v. 2.0 instead. > > Is BSON even any kind of a standard?
You know that if it were a standard, it would be WORSE! :-) This falls into big time "no way!" If there was a standardized binary encoding for XML that was effectively a tree (e.g. - more or less like a set of Lisp objects with CAR/CDR linkages), that would be somewhat interesting, as it could be both comparatively compact, and perhaps offer rapid navigation through the tree. BSON doesn't sound like that! -- http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
