Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> And if we add a new format version in 9.5 we need to make it discernible >> from the 9.4 format. Without space for a format indicator we'd have to >> resort to ugly tricks like defining the high bit in the first byte set >> indicates the new version. I don't see the improvement here.
> Point being: a 9.5 binary format reading server could look for a magic > token in the beginning of the file which would indicate the presence > of a header. The server could then make intelligent decisions about > reading data inside the file which would be follow exactly the same > kinds of decisions binary format consuming client code would make. > Perhaps it would be a simple check on version, or something more > complex that would involve a negotiation. The 'format' indicator, > should version not be precise enough, needs to be in the header, not > passed with every instance of the data type, and certainly not for one > type in the absence of others. Basically, you want to move the goalposts to somewhere that's not only out of reach today, but probably a few counties away from the stadium. I don't see this happening at all frankly, because nobody has been interested enough to work on something like it up to now. And I definitely don't see it as appropriate to block improvement of jsonb until this happens. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers