On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> Also, please recognize that the current implementation was what we
> collectively decided on three months ago, and what Andrew worked pretty
> hard to implement based on that collective decision. So if we're going
> to change course, we need a specific reason to change course, not just
> "it seems like a better idea now" or "I wasn't paying attention then".
I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. But if it does, what
exactly am I insisting on that is inconsistent with that consensus? In
what way are we changing course? I think I'm being eminently flexible.
I don't want a jsonb type that is broken, as for example by not having
a default B-Tree operator class. Why don't you let me get on with it?
--
Peter Geoghegan