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 :-( ]
regards, tom lane
