| From: | "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "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 21:46:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20131115214644.GJ28440@aart.rice.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
> http://pgexperts.com
>
What about a GUC for json version? Then you could choose and they
could both be call json.
Regards,
Ken
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-15 21:53:26 | Re: additional json functionality |
| Previous Message | David Johnston | 2013-11-15 21:20:11 | Re: additional json functionality |