Greetings, * Merlin Moncure (mmonc...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:53 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Andres' point about alignment is a pretty good one as well, if it applies > > here --- I don't recall just what internal alignment requirements jsonb > > has. We have not historically expected clients to have to deal with that. > > I see your (and Andres') point; the binary wire format ought to lay on > top of the basic contracts established by other types. It can be > binary; just not a straight memcpy out of the server. The array and > composite type serializers should give some inspiration there on > serialization.
Right- I agree w/ Tom and Andres on this part also. > I'll still stand other point I made though; I'd > really want to see some benchmarks demonstrating benefit over > competing approaches that work over the current formats. That should > frame the argument as to whether this is a good idea. What are the 'competing approaches' you're alluding to here? Sending text-format json across as we do today? Is there something else you're thinking would be appropriate in this kind of a performance bake-off...? I'm having a hard time seeing what else would actually have the flexibility that JSON does without being clearly worse (xml?). Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
