On 11/18/2013 06:49 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 11/18/2013 06:13 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 11/15/13, 6:15 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> Thing is, I'm not particularly concerned about *Merlin's* specific use >>> case, which there are ways around. What I am concerned about is that we >>> may have users who have years of data stored in JSON text fields which >>> won't survive an upgrade to binary JSON, because we will stop allowing >>> certain things (ordering, duplicate keys) which are currently allowed in >>> those columns. At the very least, if we're going to have that kind of >>> backwards compatibilty break we'll want to call the new version 10.0. >> We could do something like SQL/XML and specify the level of "validity" >> in a typmod, e.g., json(loose), json(strict), etc. > Doesn't work; with XML, the underlying storage format didn't change. > With JSONB, it will ... so changing the typemod would require a total > rewrite of the table. That's a POLS violation if I ever saw one We do rewrites on typmod changes already.
To me having json(string) and json(hstore) does not seem too bad. Cheers Hannu -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
