Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL
Date
Msg-id 20170307193857.cpdztwhaoloei4ba@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL  (Oleg Bartunov <obartunov@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL  ("Sven R. Kunze" <srkunze@mail.de>)
Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2017-03-07 12:21:59 +0300, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On 2017-03-03 15:49:38 -0500, David Steele wrote:
> > I propose we move this patch to the 2017-07 CF so further development
> > and review can be done without haste and as the standard becomes more
> > accessible.

+1


> I wanted to have one more  good feature in 10 and let postgres be on par
> with other competitors.  SQL/JSON adds many interesting features and users
> will be dissapointed if we postpone it for next two years.   Let's wait for
> reviewers, probably they will find the patch is not very  intrusive.

I think it's way too late to late for a patch of this size for 10. And I
don't think it's fair to a lot of other patches of significant size that
have been submitted way earlier, that also need reviewing resources, to
say that we can just see whether it'll get the required resources.


> We have a plenty of time and we dedicate one full-time developer for
> this project.

How about having that, and perhaps others, developer participate in
reviewing patches and getting to the bottom of the commitfest?  Should
we end up being done early, we can look at this patch...  There's not
been review activity corresponding to the amount of submissions from
pgpro...

- Andres



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Enabling parallelism for queries coming from SQL orother PL functions