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.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
> http://pgexperts.com
>
What about a GUC for json version? Then you could choose and they
could both be call json.
Regards,
Ken
