Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> In the jsonb patch I have been working on, I have replicated all of what
> I call the json processing functions, and I will shortly add analogs for
> the new functions in that category json_to_record and json_to_recordset.
> However I have not replicated what I call the json generation functions,
> array_to_json, row_to_json, to_json, and the new functions
> json_build_array, json_build_object, and json_object, nor the aggregate
> functions json_agg and the new json_object_agg. The reason for that is
> that I have always used those for constructing json given to the client,
> rather than json stored in the database, and for such a use there would
> be no point in turning it into jsonb rather than generating the json
> string directly.
> However, I could be persuaded that we should have a jsonb analog of
> every json function. If we decide that, the next question is whether we
> have to have it now, or if it can wait.
> (The other notable thing that's missing, and I think can't wait, is
> casts from json to jsonb and vice versa. I'm going to work on that
> immediately.)
It disturbs me that two weeks into CF4, we appear to still be in
full-speed-ahead development mode for jsonb. Every other feature
that's hoping to get into 9.4 is supposed to have a completed patch
under review by the CF process.
If jsonb is an exception, why? It seems to have already gotten a
pass on the matter of documentation quality. I'm reluctant to write
a blank check for more code.
regards, tom lane
