Re: JSON and unicode surrogate pairs

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: JSON and unicode surrogate pairs
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoZ3xK-no3AnOFkJvegkYNLGbzp47ZsRC+F7RsqJnHCKBQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: JSON and unicode surrogate pairs  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: JSON and unicode surrogate pairs  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Re: JSON and unicode surrogate pairs  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Well, if we have to break backwards compatibility when we try to do
> binary storage, we're not going to be happy either.  So I think we'd
> better have a plan in mind for what will happen then.

Who says we're ever going to do any such thing?  This was extensively
debated when we added the original type, and I thought that it was
agreed that we might ultimately need both a type that stored JSON as
text and another that stored it as binary.  And we might need an
XML-binary type as well.  But there are also cases where storing the
data as text is *better*, and I don't see us ever getting rid of that.

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



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Fabien COELHO
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCH] pgbench --throttle (submission 7 - with lag measurement)
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Freezing without write I/O