Re: jsonb concatenate operator's semantics seem questionable

On 05/24/2015 03:17 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> This change really makes this set of jsonb features quite a bit more
>> compelling. I'm glad I thought of it - wish I had done so earlier. So
>> notwithstanding the controversy upthread, I think this is a good result.
> I think that we should look into making jsonb support array-style
> subscripting within updates (to update "nested subdatums" directly).
> This would make the new concatenate operator a lot more compelling.
> Also, UPDATE targetlists don't accept a table qualification in their
> targetlist (for the assign-to column) because the parser similarly
> needs to support updating composite type's "nested subdatums"
> directly.
>
> Having gone to the trouble of making the parser support this stuff (in
> a way that makes us not follow the SQL standard in a couple of
> places), we ought to have a similar capability for jsonb. I haven't
> looked into it, but it seems like a good project for 9.6. I'm not
> volunteering to undertake the project, though.

Yes, sounds like it would be good. I too am not volunteering.

cheers

andrew