Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> And if we add a new format version in 9.5 we need to make it discernible
>> from the 9.4 format. Without space for a format indicator we'd have to
>> resort to ugly tricks like defining the high bit in the first byte set
>> indicates the new version. I don't see the improvement here.
> Point being: a 9.5 binary format reading server could look for a magic
> token in the beginning of the file which would indicate the presence
> of a header. The server could then make intelligent decisions about
> reading data inside the file which would be follow exactly the same
> kinds of decisions binary format consuming client code would make.
> Perhaps it would be a simple check on version, or something more
> complex that would involve a negotiation. The 'format' indicator,
> should version not be precise enough, needs to be in the header, not
> passed with every instance of the data type, and certainly not for one
> type in the absence of others.
Basically, you want to move the goalposts to somewhere that's not only
out of reach today, but probably a few counties away from the stadium.
I don't see this happening at all frankly, because nobody has been
interested enough to work on something like it up to now. And I
definitely don't see it as appropriate to block improvement of jsonb
until this happens.
regards, tom lane
