Re: jsonb concatenate operator's semantics seem questionable

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Ilya Ashchepkov <koctep(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ryan Pedela <rpedela(at)datalanche(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
Subject: Re: jsonb concatenate operator's semantics seem questionable
Date: 2015-05-20 19:19:13
Message-ID: CAFj8pRArpHki3Yw5ovxGDgb6Pd5=V3gEPibtwAXp5SHDF0rL-w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

It is like bugfix than new feature
Dne 20.5.2015 21:08 napsal uživatel "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>:

> On 05/20/2015 11:34 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > So Dmitry, at my suggestion, has come up with a way of doing that, by
> > adding a parameter to jsonb_replace(). If this parameter is set to true
> > (it defaults to false) and the key or array element pointed to by the
> > last element of the path doesn't exist, it gets created.
>
> 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?
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
> http://pgexperts.com
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-05-20 19:21:57 anole: assorted stability problems
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2015-05-20 19:17:53 Re: GROUPING