Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)
Date
Msg-id 20140423105630.GQ10046@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)  (Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:20:42AM +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 23/04/14 00:40, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >>Where are we on the default JSONB opclass change?
> >
> >FWIW, I still don't have any strong opinion here. I defer to others on
> >this question.
> >
> 
> I vote for changing it, even though neither option is ideal I think
> that given the nature of datatype the current default will break
> inserts for common usage pattern and that's much worse than not
> being able to use the index for some operators.

I agree.  We should choose the most general option as the default.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + Everyone has their own god. +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Typo in doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml? s/tranche/trance?
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.4 Proposal: Initdb creates a single table