Greetings,
* Aleksander Alekseev (a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
> > I understand that you're open to having it as a new data type or as a
> > bytea, but I don't agree. This should be a new data type, just as json
> > is a distinct data type and so is jsonb.
>
> Could you please explain in a little more detail why you believe so?
As mentioned elsewhere, there's multiple ways to encode thrift, no? We
should pick which one makes sense and make that the interface to the
data type and then we might actually store the data differently, not to
mention that we'll likely want to build on things like indexing
capabilities to this data type, as we have for jsonb, and that's much
cleaner to do with a proper data type than if everyone has to use bytea
to store the data and then functional indexes (if we could even make
that happen... I'm not thrilled with such an idea in any case).
Data validation is another thing- if it's a thrift data type then we can
validate that it's correct on the way in, and depend on that correctness
on the way out (to some extent- obviously we have to be wary of
corruption possibilities and such).
We could toss out all of our data types and store everything as bytea's
if we wanted to, but we don't, and for quite a few good reasons, these
are just a couple that I'm thinking of off-hand.
> Also I wonder whether in your opinion the extension should provide
> implicit casts from/to bytea as well.
I wouldn't make them implicit...
Thanks!
Stephen
