On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I remember strong voices in support of *not* normalising json, so that
> things like
>
> {"a":1,"a":true, "a":"b", "a":none}
>
> would go through the system unaltered, for claimed standard usage of
> json as
> "processing instructions". That is as source code which can possibly
> converted
> to JavaScript Object and not something that would come out of
> serialising of
> any existing JavaScript Object.
Yeah, as the guy who wrote the original version of the JSON type,
which works just exactly like the XML type does, I stronly object to
changing the behavior. And doubly so now that it's released, as we
would be breaking backward compatibility.
> I suggest we add another type, maybe jsobj, which has input and output
> as standard
> "JSON" but which is defined from the start to be equivalent of existing
> object
> and not "preservable source code" to such object.
I think this was the consensus solution when this was last discussed,
and I support it. There is similar space for a binary XML data type
if someone feels like implementing it. I think the names that were
proposed previously were something like jsonb and xmlb.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
