On Nov 15, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
> Yeah, it would be a total foot gun here I think. > > I've come to the conclusion that the only possible solution is to have a > separate type. That's a bit sad, but there it is. The upside is that this > will make the work Teodor has mentioned simpler. (Desperately making lemonade > from lemons here.) Fine. My bikeshedding: Call the new type "jsonb". “B” for “binary.” Also, the old one is implicitly "jsona". Get it? David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
