| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Ryan Pedela <rpedela(at)datalanche(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ilya Ashchepkov <koctep(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: jsonb concatenate operator's semantics seem questionable |
| Date: | 2015-05-20 19:42:39 |
| Message-ID: | 555CE3AF.8070700@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/20/2015 03:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> That does cover all bases, and users would be able to create the
>> operator which suits their particular use case easily. It's also fairly
>> similar to how jsquery works, although the syntax is completely different.
>> But ... it's after feature freeze. So, thoughts?
> I think this could be seen as a correction/bug fix for a pre-freeze
> feature. We should not be too resistant to filing down rough edges
> on new features, even if that involves a spec change.
>
>
OK, I'll run with that. The rest is largely bikeshedding, really.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-05-20 19:44:12 | Re: anole: assorted stability problems |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-05-20 19:42:26 | Re: jsonb concatenate operator's semantics seem questionable |