Re: [BUGS] BUG #12070: hstore extension: hstore_to_json_loose produces invalid JSON - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [BUGS] BUG #12070: hstore extension: hstore_to_json_loose produces invalid JSON
Date
Msg-id 9580.1417365900@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [BUGS] BUG #12070: hstore extension: hstore_to_json_loose produces invalid JSON  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: [BUGS] BUG #12070: hstore extension: hstore_to_json_loose produces invalid JSON  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Re: [BUGS] BUG #12070: hstore extension: hstore_to_json_loose produces invalid JSON  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> what do you want to do about this? In the back branches, exposing a 
> function like this would be an API change, wouldn't it? Perhaps there we 
> just need to pick up the 100 lines or so involved from json.c and copy 
> them into hstore_io.c, suitably modified. In the development branch I 
> thing adding the function to the API is the best way.

If we're going to do it by calling some newly-exposed function, I'd be
inclined to fix it the same way in the back branches.  Otherwise the
discrepancy between the branches is a big back-patching hazard.
(For instance, if we realize we need to fix a bug in the numeric-parsing
code, what are the odds that we remember to fix hstore's additional copy
in the back branches?)

The "API break" isn't a big issue imo.  The net effect would be that eg
hstore 9.3.6 wouldn't work against a 9.3.5 server.  We do that sort of
thing *all the time* --- at least twice in the past year, according to
a quick scan of the commit logs.  If you were changing or removing a
function that third-party code might depend on, it'd be problematic,
but an addition has no such risk.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #12070: hstore extension: hstore_to_json_loose produces invalid JSON
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Removing INNER JOINs