On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Also, please recognize that the current implementation was what we > collectively decided on three months ago, and what Andrew worked pretty > hard to implement based on that collective decision. So if we're going > to change course, we need a specific reason to change course, not just > "it seems like a better idea now" or "I wasn't paying attention then".
I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. But if it does, what exactly am I insisting on that is inconsistent with that consensus? In what way are we changing course? I think I'm being eminently flexible. I don't want a jsonb type that is broken, as for example by not having a default B-Tree operator class. Why don't you let me get on with it? -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
