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

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> 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.

That seems to be the consensus, but now we need a name for the
soon-to-be-not-default opclass.  What's a good short adjective for it?
        regards, tom lane