On 02/11/2014 01:16 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> It works in enough cases atm that it's worthwile trying to keep it >> working. Sure, it could be better, but it's what we have right now. Atm >> it's e.g. the only realistic way to copy larger amounts of bytea between >> servers without copying the entire cluster. > That's the thing -- it might work today, but what about tomorrow? > We'd be sending the wrong signals. People start building processes > around all of this and now we've painted ourselves into a box. Better > in my mind to simply educate users that this practice is dangerous and > unsupported, as we used to do. I guess until now. It seems completely > odd to me that we're attaching a case to the jsonb type, in the wrong > way -- something that we've never attached to any other type before. > For example, why didn't we attach a version code to the json type send > function? JSON is supposed to be a *standard* way of encoding data in strings. If the ever changes, it will not be JSON type anymore.
Cheers -- Hannu Krosing PostgreSQL Consultant Performance, Scalability and High Availability 2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
