2011/12/13 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On mån, 2011-12-12 at 16:51 -0800, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
>>> Because we haven't heard from him in a while we've been using PL/V8 to
>>> validate a JSON datatype simulated by a DOMAIN with a simple
>>> acceptance function. (See below.) This is not ideally performant but
>>> thanks to V8's JIT the JSON parser is actually reasonably good.
>>>
>>> I think releasing something simple and non-performant with reasonable
>>> semantics would be the best next step. If it were up to me, I'd
>>> probably even try to just land PL/V8 as PL/JavaScript for 9.2 if the
>>> crash bugs and deal breakers can be sifted out.
>>
>> You don't need a new PL to do that. The existing PLs can also parse
>> JSON. So that's not nearly enough of a reason to consider adding this
>> new PL.
>
> Just because all our languages are Turing-complete doesn't mean they
> are all equally well-suited to every task. Of course, that doesn't
> mean we'd add a whole new language just to get a JSON parser, but I
> don't think that's really what Peter was saying. Rather, I think the
> point is that embedded Javascript is *extremely* popular, lots and
> lots of people are supporting it, and we ought to seriously consider
> doing the same. It's hard to think of another PL that we could add
> that would give us anywhere near the bang for the buck that Javascript
> would.
it is true - but there is a few questions
* will be JSON supported from SQL?
* what Javascript engine will be supported?
* will be integrated JSON supported from PLPerl?
I like to see Javacript's in pg, but I don't like Javascript just for
JSON. JSON should be independent on javascript.
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
