On 5/25/21 4:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > 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. > >
Quite so. To some extent it's a toy. But at least one of our customers has found it useful, and judging by Aleksander's email they aren't alone. Your ideas downthread are probably a useful pointer of how we might fruitfully proceed. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
