Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> IMNSHO it's essential. I think Peter's approach of ignoring this
>> requirement is extremely shortsighted.
>>
>
> Whose requirement is it? I'm not ignoring it, but so far no one has
> actually said that it is a requirement and why.
>
>
Mine for one :-). Quite apart from any other reason I would expect it to
make indexing parts of the JSON more tractable. Say we use it to store a
web session object, which is a natural enough use. I might well want to
find or modify sessions with certain characteristics. I'm sure I
wouldn't be the only possible usewr who would want something
substantially more of such a type than just being able to validate it.
We have XPath for XML. and a substantial accessor API for hstore, so why
would we want anything less for JSON?
In general we have adopted an approach that allows for a very rich type
system, with a substantial set of manipulator functions for almost all
types. That's one of the things I find attractive about Postgres, so I
think we should stick to it in this instance.
cheers
andrew
