On 02/28/2014 02:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> ... This requires larger changes to the existing patch, which likely means
>> missing the bus for 9.4 (and you've seen my blog about that)
> Yeah. I realize you're gung-ho about getting jsonb into 9.4 in some
> form, and I recognize that getting better JSON support is important.
> But I wonder how carefully you've thought about the damage it'll do
> if what ships in 9.4 is a weird, hard-to-use mishmash. I'd much
> rather see us take the time to get it right than to ship something
> that's basically a kluge. And having a core type that depends on
> an extension for critical functionality is certainly nothing but a
> kluge. As an example, you're arguing that some sysadmins won't permit
> installation of contrib modules. (Let's pass over the question of
> how true or sane that is.) If they won't allow hstore to be installed,
> and jsonb is crippled in consequence, where does that put us for
> adoption purposes? I'd argue that it's worse than not shipping jsonb
> yet at all.
>
>
That hasn't been the way we've done things in the past. We're frequently
incremental. New features sometimes take several releases to mature.
Taking an example from close by, this will be the third release with
Json, and it's got a bunch of spiffy new stuff, but there's at least one
more round to go (what Merlin calls Manipulation functions), which I'm
rather hopeing someone other than me will see fit to implement.
As for what Peter suggests, I just can't bring myself to do anything
that would require people to say "Oh, you want jsonb? You have to load
hstore." It would be plain embarrassing.
cheers
andrew