Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Tom Lane wrote: > > 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 :-( ] > > > > > > > > Now that's a case where I think a couple of converter functions at most > should meet the need.
I can see this feature getting web developers more excited about Postgres. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
