Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WhlpP-0000ZW-Eq for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 20:19:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WhlpO-0005Df-Ug for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 20:19:02 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:7903:4::125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WhlpN-0005C8-H7 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 20:19:01 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WhlpL-0007gm-4R for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 20:19:00 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s46KIon9016770; Tue, 6 May 2014 16:18:50 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Bruce Momjian cc: Greg Stark , Robert Haas , Heikki Linnakangas , Andrew Dunstan , Peter Geoghegan , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation) In-reply-to: <20140506201048.GI30817@momjian.us> References: <29030.1396993582@sss.pgh.pa.us> <534475B7.6020908@dunslane.net> <5344EAA4.1050605@vmware.com> <30137.1397057056@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20140422223230.GL10046@momjian.us> <16527.1398214220@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20140506201048.GI30817@momjian.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Tue, 06 May 2014 16:10:49 -0400" Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 16:18:50 -0400 Message-ID: <16769.1399407530@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Bruce Momjian writes: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 08:50:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Bruce Momjian writes: >>> Where are we on the default JSONB opclass change? >> Not sure. I'm for changing it, I think, but it wasn't at all clear >> that we had consensus on that. We did not have a proposed new name >> for the opclass either ... > Where are we on this question? Stuck on the naming question. I'd be willing to do the patch legwork if we had a consensus (or even a proposal) for what to rename the current jsonb_ops to. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers