On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:59:37AM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Just out of curiosity, exactly what features are missing from jsonb
> >> today that are available with hstore? How long would it take to
> >> copy-and-paste all that code, if someone were to decide to do the
> >> work instead of argue about it?
> >
> > I believe the main thing is the opclasses.
>
> Yes, that's right. A large volume of code currently proposed for
> hstore2 is much less valuable than those operators sufficient to
> implement the hstore2 opclasses. If you assume that hstore will become
> a legacy extension that we won't add anything to (including everything
> proposed in any patch posted to this thread), and jsonb will go in
> core (which is of course more or less just hstore2 with a few json
> extras), the amount of code redundantly shared between core and an
> unchanged hstore turns out to not be that bad. I hope to have a
> precise answer to just how bad soon.
So, now knowing that hstore2 is just hierarchical hstore using the same
hstore type name, you are saying that we are keeping the
non-hierarchical code in contrib, and the rest goes into core --- that
makes sense, and from a code maintenance perspective, I like that the
non-hierarchical hstore code is not going in core.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
