Re: PATCH: Add hstore_to_json()
Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2009-12-18T21:11:52Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
+1 for such a feature, simply to avoid the need of writing a hstore-parser (which wasn't too bad to write, but it felt unnecessary). Doesn't matter to me if it's hstore-to-json or hstore-to-xml or hstore-to-yaml. Just something that parsers are readily available for. Heck, I wouldn't mind if hstore moved to using any one of those for it's external representations by default. Tom Lane wrote: > a ton of special syntax for xml support, ...a json type... > [ I can already hear somebody insisting on a yaml type :-( ] If these were CPAN-like installable modules, I'd hope there would be eventually. Don't most languages and platforms have both YAML and JSON libraries? Yaml's user-defined types are an example of where this might be useful eventually. Tom Lane wrote: > Well, actually, now that you mention it: how much of a json type would > be duplicative of the xml stuff? Would it be sufficient to provide > json <-> xml converters and let the latter type do all the heavy lifting? I imagine eventually a JSON type could validate fields using JSON Schema. But that's drifting away from hstore. > (If so, this patch ought to be hstore_to_xml instead.) Doesn't matter to me so long as it's any format with readily available parsers.