On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 04:18:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 08:50:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian writes:
> >>> Where are we on the default JSONB opclass change?
>
> >> Not sure. I'm for changing it, I think, but it wasn't at all
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 08:50:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian writes:
>>> Where are we on the default JSONB opclass change?
>> Not sure. I'm for changing it, I think, but it wasn't at all clear
>> that we had consensus on that. We did not have a proposed ne
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 08:50:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Where are we on the default JSONB opclass change?
>
> Not sure. I'm for changing it, I think, but it wasn't at all clear
> that we had consensus on that. We did not have a proposed new name
> for the opclass e
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> That seems to be the consensus, but now we need a name for the
>> soon-to-be-not-default opclass. What's a good short adjective for it?
> "comprehensive"? Not particularly short ...
> According to Merriam Webster:
> Synonyms
> all-embracing, al
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:20:42AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> >> On 23/04/14 00:40, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Where are we on the default JSONB opclass change?
>
> >>> FWIW, I still don'
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:20:42AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 23/04/14 00:40, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Where are we on the default JSONB opclass change?
>>> FWIW, I still don't have any strong opinion here
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:20:42AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > I vote for changing it, even though neither option is ideal I think
> > that given the nature of datatype the current default will break
> > inserts for common usage pattern a
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:20:42AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 23/04/14 00:40, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>Where are we on the default JSONB opclass change?
> >
> >FWIW, I still don't have any strong opinion here. I defer to others on
> >
On 23/04/14 00:40, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Where are we on the default JSONB opclass change?
FWIW, I still don't have any strong opinion here. I defer to others on
this question.
I vote for changing it, even though neither option is idea
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Where are we on the default JSONB opclass change?
Not sure. I'm for changing it, I think, but it wasn't at all clear
that we had consensus on that. We did not have a proposed new name
for the opclass either ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pg
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Where are we on the default JSONB opclass change?
FWIW, I still don't have any strong opinion here. I defer to others on
this question.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make ch
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 02:22:54PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Maybe we should make *neither* of these the default opclass, and give
> >> *neither* the name json_ops.
> >
> > There's definitely something to be said for that. Default opclasses a
12 matches
Mail list logo
