On 11/20/2013 12:50 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
Advertising
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com
<mailto:j...@agliodbs.com>> wrote:
On 11/15/2013 04:00 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> Looking at this a different way: could we just implement BSON
and leave json
> alone?
>
> http://bsonspec.org/
In short? No.
For one thing, our storage format is different from theirs (better,
frankly), and as a result is not compliant with their "standard".
Not being super familiar with either BSON our JSONB what advantages
are we gaining from the difference?
It might be interesting if we supported the same binary representation
so we could have a binary send/recv routines that don't need to do any
serialization/deserialization. Especially since a standard format
would potentially be skipping the serialization/deserialization on
both the server and client.
To start with, it doesn't support arbitrary precision numerics. That
means that right off the bat it's only accepting a subset of what the
JSON spec allows. 'Nuff said, I think.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
