On 11/15/2013 04:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "ktm@rice.edu" <ktm@rice.edu> writes:
>> 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.
>> What about a GUC for json version? Then you could choose and they
>> could both be call json.
> GUCs that change user-visible semantics have historically proven to be
> much less good ideas than they seem at first glance.
>
>
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.)
cheers
andrew