2014-09-29 17:38 GMT+02:00 Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net>: > * Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: > > That said, doing this as an extension is probably a good way to go, > > as I suggested upthread, since we could then make it available for > > 9.4, rather than making people wait until 9.5. > > Two points on this- having it in 9.5 doesn't preclude someone from > extracting it into an extension for 9.4 (indeed, that makes it far more > likely for such an extension to actually happen, imv..), and having it > in core means it's actually generally available and a function which can > be depended upon, which is far from the case for an extension. Things > are a bit better if it's in contrib, though we'd want to have more than > one function provided in such a contrib extension. >
+1 Pavel > > Perhaps there are other functions related to JSON which should go into > such a contrib extension which would make it more worthwhile.. Would > hate to have an extension that ends up being "yeah, to actually use > JSON in PG you have to have this extension" either though. > > I realize that can possibly be a "slippery slope", where we end up with > more in core than really belongs there, but this strikes me as a common > enough case that we should cover it. If I didn't feel it would be a > frequently used capability, I wouldn't have supported adding it in the > first place.. > > Thanks, > > Stephen >
