On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:34:10AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> > Just out of curiosity, exactly what features are missing from jsonb
>> > today that are available with hstore? How long would it take to
>> > copy-and-paste all that code, if someone were to decide to do the
>> > work instead of argue about it?
>>
>> Somewhere upthread, Peter seemed to estimate it at a day, if I
>> understood correctly. If that's accurate, I'm certainly behind getting
>> it done and in and moving on. I'm sure no one particularly likes a
>> bunch of copy/pasteing of code, but if it would get us to the point of
>> having a really working jsonb that everyone is happy with, I'm all for
>> it.
>>
>> It's not clear how much different it would be if we waited til 9.5
>> either- do we anticipate a lot of code changes beyond the copy/paste for
>> these?
>
> What _would_ be interesting is to move all the hstore code into core,
> and have hstore contrib just call the hstore core parts. That way, you
> have one copy of the code, it is shared with JSONB, but hstore remains
> as an extension that you can change or remove later.
That seems like an approach possibly worth investigating. It's not
too different from what we did when we moved text search into core.
The basic idea seems to be that we want jsonb in core, and we expect
it to replace hstore, but we can't get just get rid of hstore because
it has too many users.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
