Re: JSON and unicode surrogate pairs

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Well, if we have to break backwards compatibility when we try to do
> binary storage, we're not going to be happy either.  So I think we'd
> better have a plan in mind for what will happen then.

Who says we're ever going to do any such thing?  This was extensively
debated when we added the original type, and I thought that it was
agreed that we might ultimately need both a type that stored JSON as
text and another that stored it as binary.  And we might need an
XML-binary type as well.  But there are also cases where storing the
data as text is *better*, and I don't see us ever getting rid of that.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company