Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> 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.
I can see this feature getting web developers more excited about
Postgres.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +