Re: JSON for PG 9.2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: JSON for PG 9.2
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoan+--uYR59Yc3N9R3a8kSxZMpHcNX6y6a88Xnmh--_Pw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: JSON for PG 9.2  ("David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:42 PM, David E. Wheeler <david@kineticode.com> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2011, at 7:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, I think that that's exactly the question here: if we do something
>> in core, will it foreclose options for people who want to do add-ons?
>
> Why would it? They would just have to use a different name.

Yeah, exactly.  Or for that matter, the same name in a different
schema.  And as for the question of text vs. binary, that's going to
be two separate data types whether it gets done in core or elsewhere.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow substitute allocators for PGresult.