On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Chris Travers <chris@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 16 September 2013 at 14:43 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Huge +1 on on this. Couple random thoughts:
>>
>> *) Hard to see how you would structure this as an extension as you're
>> adjusting the behaviors of existing functions, unless you wanted to
>> introduce new function names for testing purposes?
>
> Yeah, and reading the source, it looks like some parts of the JSON parsing
> code will have to be rewritten because the nested object errors are thrown
> quite deeply in the parsing stage. It looks to me as if this will require
> some significant copying as a POC into a new file with different publicly
> exposed function names.
ISTM that's not worth it then.
>> *) Would like to at least consider being able to use casting syntax as
>> a replacement for "populate_record" and (the missing) "populate_array"
>> for most usages.
>
> Yes. I am trying to figure out how best to do this at present. Initially I
> think I would be happy to settle for casts wrapping functions which
> themselves just wrap the call to populate_record.
right.
> What I will probably do for my POC is expose the following methods:
>
> 1. json_populate_type()
hm if you're going to name it that way, prefer json_populate_value().
(or maybe _scalar() or _datum()). but we have to_json(), so how about
from_json()?
merlin