| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Further issues with jsonb semantics, documentation |
| Date: | 2015-06-05 22:13:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSf2DJbjCo=zp1i0jhRKAk=7q5q3tgPTQ-yZcwhCFNu7g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>>> Also, what about negative array subscripting (making the 9.4-era
>>> "operator jsonb -> integer" operator support that for consistency with
>>> the new "operator jsonb - integer" operator)? Should I write the
>>> patch? Will you commit it if I do?
> Send the first one, I'm still thinking about the second one.
The first patch is attached.
Regardless of anything else, I see no reason to delay applying my
documentation patch for "operator jsonb - text" [1].
Thanks
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZQFSWMi2aVi-Lun_JBYh-RfHQ3-0fm8TXpW8OLc+v8ZnQ@mail.gmail.com
--
Peter Geoghegan
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Desupport-jsonb-subscript-deletion-on-objects.patch | text/x-patch | 7.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-06-05 22:15:59 | Re: [HACKERS] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1 |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2015-06-05 22:12:53 | Re: could not truncate directory "pg_subtrans": apparent wraparound |