On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > On 02/27/2014 10:09 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> * It hardly makes any sense to have an in-core jsonb if it comes with >> no batteries included. You need to install hstore for this jsonb >> implementation to be of *any* use anyway. > > > > This is complete nonsense. Right out of the box today a considerable number > of the json operations are likely to be considerable faster.
We need the hstore operator classes to have something interesting. That's what those people at trade shows and developer conferences that Josh refers to actually care about. But in any case, even that's kind of beside the point. I'm hearing a lot about how important jsonb is, but not much on how to make the simple jsonb cases that are currently broken (as illustrated by my earlier examples [1], [2]) work. Surely you'd agree that those are problematic. We need a better solution than an implicit cast. What do you propose? I think we might be able to fix at least some things with judicious use of function overloading, or we could if it didn't seem incongruous to have to do so given the role of the hstore module in the extant patch. [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZR2mWUNFoQdWQmEsJsvaEBqq6jhfCM1Wevwc7r=tpf...@mail.gmail.com [2] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cam3swzslybxywh6p2pghhfgzmzkhqbwkfr83mrzqvsoyqfb...@mail.gmail.com -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers