Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 5/25/21 4:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, even if ZSON was "100% compatible with JSONB" back in 2016,
>> a whole lot of features have been added since then. Having to
>> duplicate all that code again for a different data type is not
>> something I want to see us doing. So that's an independent reason
>> for wanting to hide this under the existing type not make a new one.
> I take your point. However, there isn't really any duplication. It's
> handled by [ creating a pair of casts ]
If that were an adequate solution then nobody would be unhappy about
json vs jsonb. I don't think it really is satisfactory:
* does nothing for user confusion (except maybe make it worse)
* not terribly efficient
* doesn't cover all cases, notably indexes.
regards, tom lane
