> Sure, but we have the choice between something that benefits just a few > cases or one that benefits more widely. > > If we all only work on the narrow use cases that are right in front of us > at the present moment then we would not have come this far. I'm sure many > GIS applications also store JSONB data, so you would be helping the > performance of the whole app, even if there isn't much JSON in PostGIS.
-1, I think this is blowing up the complexity of a already useful patch, even though there's no increase in complexity due to the patch proposed here. I totally get wanting incremental decompression for jsonb, but I don't see why Paul should be held hostage for that.
Not sure I agree with your emotive language. Review comments != holding hostages.
If we add one set of code now and need to add another different one later, we will have 2 sets of code that do similar things.
I'm surprised to hear you think that is a good thing.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
