"k...@rice.edu" <k...@rice.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers