On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> On 02/27/2014 10:09 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
>> * It hardly makes any sense to have an in-core jsonb if it comes with
>> no batteries included. You need to install hstore for this jsonb
>> implementation to be of *any* use anyway.
>
>
>
> This is complete nonsense. Right out of the box today a considerable number
> of the json operations are likely to be considerable faster.
We need the hstore operator classes to have something interesting.
That's what those people at trade shows and developer conferences that
Josh refers to actually care about. But in any case, even that's kind
of beside the point.
I'm hearing a lot about how important jsonb is, but not much on how to
make the simple jsonb cases that are currently broken (as illustrated
by my earlier examples [1], [2]) work. Surely you'd agree that those
are problematic. We need a better solution than an implicit cast. What
do you propose? I think we might be able to fix at least some things
with judicious use of function overloading, or we could if it didn't
seem incongruous to have to do so given the role of the hstore module
in the extant patch.
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZR2mWUNFoQdWQmEsJsvaEBqq6jhfCM1Wevwc7r=tPFuRw@mail.gmail.com
[2] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZSLybxywH6p2pGhHFGZMzkHqBWkfr83mrzQVsoyqFB9xw@mail.gmail.com
--
Peter Geoghegan
