Re: json (b) and null fields

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Andrew Dunstan (andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net) wrote:
>> That said, doing this as an extension is probably a good way to go,
>> as I suggested upthread, since we could then make it available for
>> 9.4, rather than making people wait until 9.5.

> Two points on this- having it in 9.5 doesn't preclude someone from
> extracting it into an extension for 9.4 (indeed, that makes it far more
> likely for such an extension to actually happen, imv..), and having it
> in core means it's actually generally available and a function which can
> be depended upon, which is far from the case for an extension.

I seem to recall that we've run into practical difficulties with moving
extensions into core. It might be OK for a functions-only extension
though.

regards, tom lane