| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: additional json functionality |
| Date: | 2013-11-15 21:53:26 |
| Message-ID: | 25738.1384552406@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:18:22PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> I believe this was a danger we recognized when we added the JSON type,
>> including the possibility that a future binary type might need to be a
>> separate type due to compatibility issues. The only sad thing is the
>> naming; it would be better for the new type to carry the JSON name in
>> the future, but there's no way to make that work that I can think of.
> What about a GUC for json version? Then you could choose and they
> could both be call json.
GUCs that change user-visible semantics have historically proven to be
much less good ideas than they seem at first glance.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-11-15 22:02:12 | Re: additional json functionality |
| Previous Message | ktm@rice.edu | 2013-11-15 21:46:44 | Re: additional json functionality |