On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 16:27, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > > Sure, but we have the choice between something that benefits just a few > > cases or one that benefits more widely. > > > > If we all only work on the narrow use cases that are right in front of us > > at the present moment then we would not have come this far. I'm sure many > > GIS applications also store JSONB data, so you would be helping the > > performance of the whole app, even if there isn't much JSON in PostGIS. > > -1, I think this is blowing up the complexity of a already useful patch, > even though there's no increase in complexity due to the patch proposed > here. I totally get wanting incremental decompression for jsonb, but I > don't see why Paul should be held hostage for that. > Not sure I agree with your emotive language. Review comments != holding hostages. If we add one set of code now and need to add another different one later, we will have 2 sets of code that do similar things. I'm surprised to hear you think that is a good thing. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
