On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:18:22PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > I believe this was a danger we recognized when we added the JSON type, > including the possibility that a future binary type might need to be a > separate type due to compatibility issues. The only sad thing is the > naming; it would be better for the new type to carry the JSON name in > the future, but there's no way to make that work that I can think of. > > -- > Josh Berkus > PostgreSQL Experts Inc. > http://pgexperts.com >
What about a GUC for json version? Then you could choose and they could both be call json. Regards, Ken -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
