On 05/05/2014 07:34 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> After all, everything that's not a number or boolean is typed as text (just
>> as it is in JSON). We don't, for example, map anything to timestamp types.
> JSON doesn't have a timestamp primitive type. Of those types that it
> has, their internal representation, and their behavior in all relevant
> contexts is more or less consistent with what you'd expect of the
> mapped-to type. I think that's a very significant point - you will be
> able to extract numerics, and manipulate them as numerics in a future
> release without using text casting hacks. null values are not typed as
> text either. Besides, the on-disk representation of numeric is quite a
> lot more compact, and this could easily matter.
>
>
OK, but if we must talk about it then at least we should do so with
precision and accuracy. The current wording is too sloppy.
cheers
andrew