| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Florents Tselai <florents(dot)tselai(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: jsonpath string methods: lower, upper, initcap, l/r/btrim, replace, split_part |
| Date: | 2025-05-13 18:07:10 |
| Message-ID: | 88A95900-E976-43BE-A73A-45AA75A11EE7@justatheory.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On May 9, 2025, at 15:50, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> # We have the kluge of having separate "_tz" functions to support
> # non-immutable datetime operations, but that way doesn't seem like
> # it's going to scale well to multiple sources of mutability.
>
> But I'm not sure I understand why it matters that there are multiple
> sources of mutability here. Maybe I'm missing a piece of the puzzle
> here.
I read that to mean “we’re not going to add another json_path_exists_* function for every potentially immutable JSONPath function. But I take your point that it could be generalized for *any* mutable function. In which case maybe it should be renamed?
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Salvatore Dipietro | 2025-05-13 18:37:45 | Re: Remove Instruction Synchronization Barrier in spin_delay() for ARM64 architecture |
| Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2025-05-13 16:57:35 | Re: queryId constant squashing does not support prepared statements |