Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 7:50 PM, David E. Wheeler <da...@kineticode.com>
> wrote:
>> Love having the start here. I forwarded this message to Claes Jakobsson,
>> creator of the jansson-using pg-json extension. Hes a bit less supportive.
>> He gave me permission to quote him here:
>>> Frankly I see the inclusion of a JSON datatype in core as unnecessary.
>>> Stuff should be moved out of core rather than in, as we do in Perl. Also,
>>> does this patch mean that the 'json' type is forever claimed and can't be
>>> replaced by extensions?
>>> There's little reason to reimplement JSON parsing, comparision and other
>>> routines when there's a multitude of already good libraries.
> That's fair enough, but we've had *many* requests for this
> functionality in core, I don't see what we lose by having at least
> some basic functionality built in. There is always room for people to
> provide extensions and add-ons that build on whatever core support we
> provide.
Well, I think that that's exactly the question here: if we do something
in core, will it foreclose options for people who want to do add-ons?
The main thing that's troubling me there is the issue of plain text
representation versus something precompiled (and if the latter, what
exactly). I don't see how you "build on" a core datatype that makes a
decision different from what you wanted for that.
I'm also +1 to Claes' opinion that this can be perfectly well managed as
an add-on. We've sweated blood over many years to make PG extensions
work nicely, and they now work better than they ever have. It's not
clear to me why the push to make something core when it can obviously be
an extension.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
