Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > In the jsonb patch I have been working on, I have replicated all of what > I call the json processing functions, and I will shortly add analogs for > the new functions in that category json_to_record and json_to_recordset.
> However I have not replicated what I call the json generation functions, > array_to_json, row_to_json, to_json, and the new functions > json_build_array, json_build_object, and json_object, nor the aggregate > functions json_agg and the new json_object_agg. The reason for that is > that I have always used those for constructing json given to the client, > rather than json stored in the database, and for such a use there would > be no point in turning it into jsonb rather than generating the json > string directly. > However, I could be persuaded that we should have a jsonb analog of > every json function. If we decide that, the next question is whether we > have to have it now, or if it can wait. > (The other notable thing that's missing, and I think can't wait, is > casts from json to jsonb and vice versa. I'm going to work on that > immediately.) It disturbs me that two weeks into CF4, we appear to still be in full-speed-ahead development mode for jsonb. Every other feature that's hoping to get into 9.4 is supposed to have a completed patch under review by the CF process. If jsonb is an exception, why? It seems to have already gotten a pass on the matter of documentation quality. I'm reluctant to write a blank check for more code. 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