On 03/07/2014 11:45 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
>
AFAIK, there is no sacrifice of optimality. hstore2 and jsonb were
essentially two ways of spelling the same data, the domains were
virtually identical (hstore might have been a bit more liberal about
numeric input).
cheers
andrew