Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> You're correct that we don't necessarily need a new type, we could just
>> make it text and have a bunch of operations, but that seems to violate
>> the principle of data type abstraction a bit.
>>
>
> I think the relevant precedent is that we have an xml type. While I
> surely don't want to follow the SQL committee's precedent of inventing
> a ton of special syntax for xml support, it might be useful to look at
> that for suggestions of what functionality would be useful for a json
> type.
>
> [ I can already hear somebody insisting on a yaml type :-( ]
>
>
>
Now that's a case where I think a couple of converter functions at most
should meet the need.
cheers
andrew
