On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 09:50:56PM +0400, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Looks like consensus is done. I and Teodor are not happy with it, but
>> what we can do :) One thing I want to do is to reserve our
>> contribution to the flagship feature (jsonb), particularly, "binary
>> storage for nested structures and indexing. Their work was sponsored
>> by Engine Yard".
>
> OK, if we are going with an unchanged hstore in contrib and a new JSONB,
> there is no reason to wack around JSONB to be binary compatible with the
> old hstore format. What sacrifices did we need to make to have JSBONB
> be binary compatible with hstore, can those sacrifices be removed, and
> can that be done in time for 9.4?
Also,
*) what hstore2 features (if any) that are not already reflected in
the jsonb type are going to be moved to josnb for 9.4?
*) if the answer above is anything but 'nothing', what hstore-isms are
going to be adjusted in the process of doing so? Presumably there
would be same function name changes to put them in the jsonb style but
also the hstore sytnax ('=>') is going to be embedded in some of the
search operators and possibly other things. Is that going change?
merlin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
