| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation) |
| Date: | 2014-04-09 02:48:32 |
| Message-ID: | 2742.1397011712@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 04/08/2014 05:57 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> ... I didn't propose changing the default due to
>> concerns about the POLA, but I'm happy to be told that those concerns
>> were out of proportion to the practical benefits of a different
>> default.
> I tend to agree with Tom that POLA will be more violated by the default
> ops class not being able to index some values.
We should wait a bit longer to see if anyone objects, but assuming that
this represents the consensus opinion ...
ISTM that the name "jsonb_ops" should have pride of place as the default
jsonb opclass. Therefore, if we make this change, jsonb_hash_ops needs to
be renamed to jsonb_ops, and we need a new name for what is now jsonb_ops.
I haven't paid attention to the technical details of the differences so
I have no idea what to suggest for the new name. Thoughts?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-04-09 04:23:43 | Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-04-08 22:18:31 | Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-04-09 03:01:01 | Re: Buffer Allocation Concurrency Limits |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-04-09 02:45:04 | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |