Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > You're correct that we don't necessarily need a new type, we could just > make it text and have a bunch of operations, but that seems to violate > the principle of data type abstraction a bit.
I think the relevant precedent is that we have an xml type. While I surely don't want to follow the SQL committee's precedent of inventing a ton of special syntax for xml support, it might be useful to look at that for suggestions of what functionality would be useful for a json type. [ I can already hear somebody insisting on a yaml type :-( ] 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