Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:02:51 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>,
 Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>,
 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>,
 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for
 GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)
Message-ID: <20140423140251.GL25695@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <534475B7.6020908@dunslane.net> <5344EAA4.1050605@vmware.com>
 <CA+TgmoZucoe-w5P_16A-gdfRBFCCu7PD17YO-KqrYPBhb5TxAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <30137.1397057056@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAM-w4HNawF2sPDSUrZsng7zgGnste-Vy1+42AufyVq9UkVeCZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140422223230.GL10046@momjian.us>
 <CAM3SWZRbVyijRX0vwhfap1S1o0OM1eGczJsQuL4CCrAs1++z7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <535777DA.3000203@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20140423105630.GQ10046@momjian.us>
 <21608.1398261050@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <21608.1398261050@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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?

"comprehensive"?  Not particularly short ...

According to Merriam Webster:
Synonyms
	all-embracing, all-in [chiefly British], all-inclusive,
	broad-gauge (or broad-gauged), compendious, complete,
	encyclopedic, cover-all, cyclopedic, embracive, exhaustive,
	full, global, inclusive, in-depth, omnibus, panoramic, thorough,
	universal

Related Words
	broad, catholic, encyclical, general, inclusionary, overall;
	cosmic (also cosmical), extensive, far, far-reaching, grand,
	large, panoptic, sweeping, vast, wide, wide-ranging; blanket,
	indiscriminate, unrestricted

jsonb_omnibus_ops ?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers