On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 7:59 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Michel Pelletier <pelletier.mic...@gmail.com> writes: > > I would like to propose a discussion that in a future major release > > Postgres switch from this custom format to JSON. > > There are certainly reasons to think about changing the node tree > storage format; but if we change it, I'd like to see it go to something > more compact not more verbose. JSON doesn't fit our needs all that > closely, so some things like bitmapsets would become a lot longer; > and even where the semantics are pretty-much-the-same, JSON's > insistence on details like quoting field names will add bytes. > Perhaps making the physical storage be JSONB not JSON would help that > pain point. It's still far from ideal though. > > Maybe a compromise could be found whereby we provide a conversion > function that converts whatever the catalog storage format is to > some JSON equivalent. That would address the needs of external > code that doesn't want to write a custom parser, while not tying > us directly to JSON. >
I think the DDL deparsing stuff that is being discussed as a base for DDL logical replication provides something like what you are saying [1][2]. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFPTHDaqqGxqncAP42Z%3Dw9GVXDR92HN-57O%3D2Zy6tmayV2_eZw%40mail.gmail.com [2] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAD30U%2BpVmfKwUKy8cbZOnUXyguJ-uBNejwD75Kyo%3DOjdQGJ9g%40mail.gmail.com -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
