On Nov 15, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> Yeah, it would be a total foot gun here I think.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that the only possible solution is to have a separate type. That's a bit sad, but there
itis. The upside is that this will make the work Teodor has mentioned simpler. (Desperately making lemonade from lemons
here.)
Fine. My bikeshedding: Call the new type "jsonb". “B” for “binary.” Also, the old one is implicitly "jsona". Get it?
David
