On Nov 13, 2013, at 3:59 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.
My recollection from PGCon was that there was consensus to normalize on the way in -- or at least, if we switched to a
binaryrepresentation as proposed by Oleg & Teodor, it was not worth the hassle to try to keep it.
> 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.
-1 Let's try to keep this simple. See also VARCHAR and VARCHAR2 on Oracle.
Best,
David
