Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 04/08/2014 05:57 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> ... I didn't propose changing the default due to
>> concerns about the POLA, but I'm happy to be told that those concerns
>> were out of proportion to the practical benefits of a different
>> default.
> I tend to agree with Tom that POLA will be more violated by the default
> ops class not being able to index some values.
We should wait a bit longer to see if anyone objects, but assuming that
this represents the consensus opinion ...
ISTM that the name "jsonb_ops" should have pride of place as the default
jsonb opclass. Therefore, if we make this change, jsonb_hash_ops needs to
be renamed to jsonb_ops, and we need a new name for what is now jsonb_ops.
I haven't paid attention to the technical details of the differences so
I have no idea what to suggest for the new name. Thoughts?
regards, tom lane