Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On 11/21/2010 12:31 AM, Terry Laurenzo wrote: I copied the 5 sample documents from json.org 's example section for these tests. These are loaded into a table with a varchar column 1000 times each (so the test table has 5000 rows in it). In all situations, the binary encod

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Terry Laurenzo wrote: > What we see from this is that parsing JSON text and generating a binary > representation is cheap, representing approximately 10% of the base case > time.  Conversely, anything that involves generating JSON text is expensive, > accounting f

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Nov 20, 2010, at 9:31 PM, Terry Laurenzo wrote: > Assuming that the JSON datatype (at a minimum) normalizes text for storage, > then the text storage option accounts for about the most expensive path but > with none of the benefits of an internal binary form (smaller size, ability > to cheap

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

I've got a new stripped down version of the binary json plugin on github: https://github.com/tlaurenzo/pgjson With all due warning of contrived benchmarks, I wrote some tests to see where things stand. The test script is here: https://github.com/tlaurenzo/pgjson/blob/master/testdocs/runbench

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

Robert, I think I agree. At a minimum, I would like to see the "chosen" of the competing priorities live on as an outside module for use by previous versions. Even having proposed one, and soon to be two of the competing implementations, it makes me nervous to commit to one at this juncture. I'm

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > Are there any activities in JSON data types for the next commitfest? I'm leaning toward the view that we shouldn't commit a JSON implementation to core (or contrib) for 9.1. We have at least three competing proposals on the table. I thou

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

Are there any activities in JSON data types for the next commitfest? I'd like to help you if you are working on the topic, or I can make up previous works and discussions by myself. On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Terry Laurenzo wrote: >> Yeah, my concern is not whether the overhead will be zer

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

> > Yeah, my concern is not whether the overhead will be zero; it's > whether it will be small, yet allow large gains on other operations. > Like, how much slower will it be to pull out a moderately complex 1MB > JSON blob (not just a big string) out of a single-row, single-column > table? If it's

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Terry Laurenzo wrote: >> It doesn't do particularly well on my previous example of [1,2,3].  It >> comes out slightly shorter on ["a","b","c"] and better if the strings >> need any escaping.  I don't think the float4 and float8 formats are >> very useful; how could

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

> > It doesn't do particularly well on my previous example of [1,2,3]. It > comes out slightly shorter on ["a","b","c"] and better if the strings > need any escaping. I don't think the float4 and float8 formats are > very useful; how could you be sure that the output was going to look > the same

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Terry Laurenzo wrote: >> >> I'm still going to write up a proposed grammar that takes these items into >> account - just ran out of time tonight. >> > > The binary format I was thinking of is here: > >   http://github.com/tlaurenzo/pgjson/blob/master/pgjson/shared/

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

> > > I'm still going to write up a proposed grammar that takes these items into > account - just ran out of time tonight. > > The binary format I was thinking of is here: http://github.com/tlaurenzo/pgjson/blob/master/pgjson/shared/include/json/jsonbinary.h This was just a quick brain dump and I

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On 10/20/2010 01:15 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: * Terry Laurenzo: Agreed. BSON was born out of implementations that either lacked arbitrary precision numbers or had a strong affinity to an int/floating point way of thinking about numbers. I believe that if BSON had an arbitrary precision numb

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

* Terry Laurenzo: > Agreed. BSON was born out of implementations that either lacked > arbitrary precision numbers or had a strong affinity to an > int/floating point way of thinking about numbers. I believe that if > BSON had an arbitrary precision number type, it would be a proper > superset of

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

Good points. In addition, any binary format needs to support object property traversal without having to do a deep scan of all descendants. BSON handles this with explicit lengths for document types (objects and arrays) so that entire parts of the tree can be skipped during sibling traversal. It

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Terry Laurenzo wrote: > The answer may be to have both a jsontext and jsonbinary type as each will > be optimized for a different case. I want to choose one format for JSON rather than having two types. It should be more efficient than other format in many cases,

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Terri Laurenzo wrote: > I hear ya.  It might be a premature optimization but I still think there may > be benefit for the case of large scale extraction and in- database > transformation of large JSON datastructures.  We have terabytes of this stuff > and I'd li

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

I hear ya. It might be a premature optimization but I still think there may be benefit for the case of large scale extraction and in- database transformation of large JSON datastructures. We have terabytes of this stuff and I'd like something between the hip nosql options and a fully structure

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Stark writes: >> The elephant in the room is if the binary encoded form is smaller then >> it occupies less ram and disk bandwidth to copy it around. > > It seems equally likely that a binary-encoded form could be larger > than the text form

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

Excerpts from David E. Wheeler's message of mar oct 19 16:36:20 -0300 2010: > On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > > I think we should take a few steps back and ask why we think that > > binary encoding is the way to go. We store XML as text, for example, > > and I can't remember

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Terry Laurenzo writes: > > After spending a week in the morass of this, I have to say that I am less > > certain than I was on any front regarding the text/binary distinction. > I'll > > take some time and benchmark different cases. My hypothe

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

Greg Stark writes: > The elephant in the room is if the binary encoded form is smaller then > it occupies less ram and disk bandwidth to copy it around. It seems equally likely that a binary-encoded form could be larger than the text form (that's often true for our other datatypes). Again, this i

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

Terry Laurenzo writes: > After spending a week in the morass of this, I have to say that I am less > certain than I was on any front regarding the text/binary distinction. I'll > take some time and benchmark different cases. My hypothesis is that a well > implemented binary structure and convers

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

2010/10/19 Greg Stark : > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I think we should take a few steps back and ask why we think that >> binary encoding is the way to go.  We store XML as text, for example, >> and I can't remember any complaints about that on -bugs or >> -performance

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

> > After spending a week in the morass of this, I have to say that I am less > certain than I was on any front regarding the text/binary distinction.  I'll > take some time and benchmark different cases.  My hypothesis is that a well > implemented binary structure and conversions will add minimal

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I think we should take a few steps back and ask why we think that > binary encoding is the way to go.  We store XML as text, for example, > and I can't remember any complaints about that on -bugs or > -performance, so why do we think JSON will

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Joseph Adams > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > >> I think we should take a few steps back and ask why we think that > >> binary encoding is the way to go. We store XML as t

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Joseph Adams wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I think we should take a few steps back and ask why we think that >> binary encoding is the way to go.  We store XML as text, for example, >> and I can't remember any complaints about tha

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Terry Laurenzo wrote: > Perhaps we should enumerate the attributes of what would make a good binary > encoding? Not sure if we're discussing the internal storage format or the binary send/recv format, but in my humble opinion, some attributes of a good internal f

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I think we should take a few steps back and ask why we think that > binary encoding is the way to go. We store XML as text, for example, > and I can't remember any complaints about that on -bugs or > -performance, so why do we think JSON will be

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Terry Laurenzo wrote: > Agreed.  BSON was born out of implementations that either lacked arbitrary > precision numbers or had a strong affinity to an int/floating point way of > thinking about numbers.  I believe that if BSON had an arbitrary precision > number ty

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

Agreed. BSON was born out of implementations that either lacked arbitrary precision numbers or had a strong affinity to an int/floating point way of thinking about numbers. I believe that if BSON had an arbitrary precision number type, it would be a proper superset of JSON. As an aside, the max

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On 10/19/2010 10:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Terry Laurenzo wrote: - It is directly iterable without parsing and/or constructing an AST - It is its own representation. If iterating and you want to tear-off a value to be returned or used elsewhere, its

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Terry Laurenzo wrote: >    - It is directly iterable without parsing and/or constructing an AST >    - It is its own representation.  If iterating and you want to tear-off a > value to be returned or used elsewhere, its a simple buffer copy plus some > bit twiddli

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

> > I like as simple design as we can accept. ISTM format, I/O interface, > > simple get/set, mapping tuple from/to object, and indexing are minimum > > requirement. > > +1 to small start, but simple get/set are already debatable... > For example, text/json conversion: > A. SELECT ''::json; > B.

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote: > Reading your proposal, I'm now +1 for BSON-like style. Especially JS > engine's capabilities to map external data to the language > representation are good news. Hmm, we could store postgres' data types as-is with their type oids. I'm not s

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

2010/10/17 Terry Laurenzo : > Hi all - > I independently started some work on a similar capability as was contributed > back in August by Joey Adams for a json datatype.  Before starting, I did a > quick search but for some reason didn't turn this existing thread up. > What I've been working on is

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

Hi all - I independently started some work on a similar capability as was contributed back in August by Joey Adams for a json datatype. Before starting, I did a quick search but for some reason didn't turn this existing thread up. What I've been working on is out on github for now: http://github.

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On 08/12/2010 06:27 AM, David Fetter wrote: +1 for putting it in core in 9.1 :) There are times I really wish I could get object graphs, or at least hierarchically nested object trees, of objects matching various criteria. JSON might be a reasonable representation, and one that's increasing

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Joseph Adams wrote: > As for whitespace preservation, I don't think we should go out of our > way to keep it intact.  Sure, preserving formatting for input and > output makes some sense because we'd have to go out of our way to > normalize it, but preserving white

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Hmm, yeah.  I'd be tempted to try to keep the user's original > whitespace as far as possible, but disregard it as far as equality > comparison goes.  However, I'm not quite sure what the right thing to > do about 0 vs 0.0 is.  Does the JSON sp

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> wrote: >>> One of my proposal is we don't have to keep the original input text. >>> We store JSON data in effective internal formats. If users want to get >>> human-readable output

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > wrote: >> One of my proposal is we don't have to keep the original input text. >> We store JSON data in effective internal formats. If users want to get >> human-readable output, they can use stringify() with indentation option. > > There's a

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > One of my proposal is we don't have to keep the original input text. > We store JSON data in effective internal formats. If users want to get > human-readable output, they can use stringify() with indentation option. There's a trade-off

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Joseph Adams > wrote: > >> Why do we need to store the value in UTF8 encoding? > > > > because the JSON code needs to handle Unicode escapes like > > "\u266B", but there is no simple and efficient way (that I know of) to > > convert sing

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Joseph Adams wrote: >> Why do we need to store the value in UTF8 encoding? > > because the JSON code needs to handle Unicode escapes like > "\u266B", but there is no simple and efficient way (that I know of) to > convert single characters to/from the server encod

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Joseph Adams > wrote: >> Updated patch: the JSON code has all been moved into core, so this >> patch is now for a built-in data type. > > I have a question about the design of the JSON type. Why do we nee

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Joseph Adams wrote: > Updated patch:  the JSON code has all been moved into core, so this > patch is now for a built-in data type. I have a question about the design of the JSON type. Why do we need to store the value in UTF8 encoding? It's true the RFC of JSON sa

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 04:06, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 09/13/2010 09:30 PM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Anyone working on JSON datatype? >> If no, I'm going to submit simplified version of JSON datatype patch. >> > > What's the state of the GSOC project? Well, GSoC itself is ov

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On 09/13/2010 09:30 PM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: Hi, Anyone working on JSON datatype? If no, I'm going to submit simplified version of JSON datatype patch. What's the state of the GSOC project? cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make cha

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

Hi, Anyone working on JSON datatype? If no, I'm going to submit simplified version of JSON datatype patch. On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Joseph Adams > wrote: >> Updated patch:  the JSON code has all been moved into core, so this >>

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

Hitoshi Harada writes: > It depends on use cases, but in my mind plain text will do for us. If > we have JavaScript engine in PostgreSQL like pl/v8 and it handles > on-disk format as-is, then we should choose the kind of format, but in > either text or binary format way it is hopeless to have such

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

2010/8/25 Robert Haas : > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Itagaki Takahiro > wrote: >> * Should we accept a scalar value as a valid JSON? >> According to RFC, the root element of JSON text must be an object >> or array. But to_json() and from_json() accept scalar values. > > This seems a bit like

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > * Should we accept a scalar value as a valid JSON? > According to RFC, the root element of JSON text must be an object > or array. But to_json() and from_json() accept scalar values. This seems a bit like the XML document/content distinct

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

Hi, I start to review JSON patch. On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Joseph Adams wrote: > Updated patch:  the JSON code has all been moved into core, so this > patch is now for a built-in data type. I think the patch can be split into two pieces: 1. Basic I/O support for JSON type (in/out/valid

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 07:39:37PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 08/11/2010 07:33 PM, David Fetter wrote: > >>I would be curious to the benefit of putting it in core. I have no > >>problem with the type but in core? > >If it's not in core, the vast majority of users will not have it > >installe

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 08/11/2010 07:33 PM, David Fetter wrote: > >> I would be curious to the benefit of putting it in core. I have no > >> problem with the type but in core? > > If it's not in core, the vast majority of users will not have it > > installed, and nothing, in core or other

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On 08/11/2010 07:33 PM, David Fetter wrote: I would be curious to the benefit of putting it in core. I have no problem with the type but in core? If it's not in core, the vast majority of users will not have it installed, and nothing, in core or otherwise, will be able to count on it. You

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 03:40:36PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 15:27 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > > > > I've been developing it as a contrib module because: > > > * I'd imagine it's easier than developing it as a built-in > > > datatype right away (e.g. editing a .sql.

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 15:27 -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > > I've been developing it as a contrib module because: > > * I'd imagine it's easier than developing it as a built-in datatype > > right away (e.g. editing a .sql.in file versus editing pg_type.h ). > > * As a module, it has PGXS support,

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 06:57:18PM -0400, Joseph Adams wrote: > Update: I'm in the middle of cleaning up the JSON code ( > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=json-datatype.git;a=summary if you > want to see the very latest ), so I haven't addressed all of the major > problems with it yet. > > On F

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 18:57 -0400, Joseph Adams wrote: > I've been developing it as a contrib module because: > * I'd imagine it's easier than developing it as a built-in datatype > right away (e.g. editing a .sql.in file versus editing pg_type.h ). > * As a module, it has PGXS support, so people

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Excerpts from Joseph Adams's message of mar ago 10 04:03:43 -0400 2010: >> An overview, along with my thoughts, of the utility functions: >> >> FN_EXTRA, FN_EXTRA_ALLOC, FN_MCXT macros >> * Useful-ometer: ()o >> >> TypeInfo structure and getTypeInfo f

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

Excerpts from Joseph Adams's message of mar ago 10 04:03:43 -0400 2010: > An overview, along with my thoughts, of the utility functions: > > FN_EXTRA, FN_EXTRA_ALLOC, FN_MCXT macros > * Useful-ometer: ()o > > TypeInfo structure and getTypeInfo function > * Useful-ometer: ()

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

> I, for one, think it would be great if the JSON datatype were all in > core :-)  However, if and how much JSON code should go into core >is up for > discussion.  Thoughts, anyone? > in my opinion: As soon as possible. Spinning PostgreSQL as the Ajax-enabled-database has many great uses. Harald

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 06:57:18PM -0400, Joseph Adams wrote: > A particularly useful aspect of the JSON support is the ability to > convert PostgreSQL arrays to JSON arrays (using to_json ), as there > currently isn't any streamlined way to parse arrays in the PostgreSQL > format client-side (that

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

Update: I'm in the middle of cleaning up the JSON code ( http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=json-datatype.git;a=summary if you want to see the very latest ), so I haven't addressed all of the major problems with it yet. On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > - I was under the impre

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > - elog() must be used except for "can't happen" situations.  Compare > the way numeric_in() throws an error message versus json_in(). Er... that should have said "elog() must NOT be used except for can't happen situations". Also, I was just l

Re: [HACKERS] patch: Add JSON datatype to PostgreSQL (GSoC, WIP)

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Joseph Adams wrote: > This is a work-in-progress patch of my GSoC project: Add JSON datatype > to PostgreSQL.  It provides the following: > >  * JSON datatype: A TEXT-like datatype for holding JSON-formatted > text.  Although the JSON RFC decrees that a JSON text b