On 11/15/2013 04:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
"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.
Yeah, it would be a total foot gun here I think.
I've come to the conclusion that the only possible solution is to have a
separate type. That's a bit sad, but there it is. The upside is that
this will make the work Teodor has mentioned simpler. (Desperately
making lemonade from lemons here.)
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: