Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)
Дата
Msg-id 21608.1398261050@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Ответы Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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 <bruce@momjian.us> 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 ideal I think
>> that given the nature of datatype the current default will break
>> inserts for common usage pattern and that's much worse than not
>> being able to use the index for some operators.

> I agree.  We should choose the most general option as the default.

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?
        regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Stephen Frost
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table
Следующее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)