Re: additional json functionality

"ktm@rice.edu" <ktm@rice.edu> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:18:22PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> I believe this was a danger we recognized when we added the JSON type,
>> including the possibility that a future binary type might need to be a
>> separate type due to compatibility issues.  The only sad thing is the
>> naming; it would be better for the new type to carry the JSON name in
>> the future, but there's no way to make that work that I can think of.

> What about a GUC for json version? Then you could choose and they
> could both be call json.

GUCs that change user-visible semantics have historically proven to be
much less good ideas than they seem at first glance.
        regards, tom lane