On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:35:41AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> IIRC The sacrifice was one bit in the header (i.e. in the first int
> after the varlena header). We could now repurpose that (for example
> if we ever decided to use a new format).
>
> Oleg and Teodor made most of the adjustments on the hstore(2) side
> (e.g. providing for scalar roots, providing for json typing of
> scalars so everything isn't just a string).
>
> Can the architecture be changed? No. If we think it's not good
> enough we would have to kiss jsonb goodbye for 9.4 and go back to
> the drawing board. But I haven't seen any such suggestion from
> anyone who has been reviewing it (e.g. Andres or Peter).
We are going to be stuck with the JSONB binary format we ship in 9.4 so
I am asking if there are things we should do to improve it, now that we
know we don't need backward compatibility.
If they can be done for 9.4, great, if not, we have to decide if these
suboptimal cases are enough for us to delay the data type until 9.5. I
don't know the answer, but I have to ask the question.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +