On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Ryan Pedela <rped...@datalanche.com> wrote: > As far as large numbers in JSON, I think Postgres is doing the right thing > and should not be changed. It is Javascript that is stupid here, and I don't > think it is wise to add something to core just because one client does > stupid things with large numbers. In addition, ES7 is introducing "value > types" which will hopefully solve the large number problem in Javascript.
FWIW, I don't agree. If it's not easy to read the JSON that PostgreSQL generates using JavaScript, then a lot of people are just going to give up on doing it, and IMO that would be sad. Telling people that they have to parse the JSON using some parser other than the one built into their JavaScript engine, whack it around, and then render it as text and parse it again is not really an acceptable answer. The reason why the logical decoding stuff allows multiple output formats is because Andres, quite correctly, foresaw that different people would need different output formats. He could have designed that system to output only one output format and just said, everybody's got to read and parse this, but that would have been slow. Instead, he tried to set things up so that you could get the output in the format that was most convenient for your client, whatever that is. On this thread, we're back-pedaling from that idea: sorry, you can get JSON output, but if you want JSON output that will be properly interpreted by your JSON parser, you can't have that. Regardless of the details of this particular patch, I can't endorse that approach. If we want people to use our software, we need to meet them where they are at, especially when we are only (IIUC) talking about inserting a few extra quotation marks. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
