From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Eugen Konkov <kes-kes(at)yandex(dot)ru>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposition for autoname columns |
Date: | 2020-11-12 16:32:49 |
Message-ID: | 9e6765a2-4908-f77f-e63f-0eee3882a482@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/12/20 11:12 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 8:59 AM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net
> <mailto:andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>> wrote:
>
>
>
> So if we then say:
>
>
> select x, j->>x from mytable;
>
>
> you want both result columns named x? That seems like a recipe for
> serious confusion. I really don't think this proposal has been
> properly
> thought through.
>
>
> IMO It no worse than today's:
>
> select count(*), count(*) from (values (1), (2)) vals (v);
> count | count
> 2 | 2
>
I guess the difference here is that there's an extra level of
indirection. So
select x, j->>'x', j->>x from mytable
would have 3 result columns all named x.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-11-12 17:02:24 | Re: Proposition for autoname columns |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2020-11-12 16:12:24 | Re: Proposition for autoname columns |