From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Are we sufficiently clear that jsonb containment is nested? |
Date: | 2015-10-29 20:46:01 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQ95w3d7K1g=+fv8qAXwxxm_O=fqKKrwWt7aC9tSAMASQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think the existing text is largely my fault, so I'll do something with
> this.
Good. Thanks.
>> I still think it would be a good idea to go back to 9.4. I have reason
>> to believe that people are getting confused on this point.
>
> You didn't present evidence backing that up, but I agree that
> clarification is a sufficient reason to back-patch doc changes.
It's difficult to provide evidence for the existence of a perception
among users when it's a perception that a quasi-reasonable limitation
exists. The fact that jsonb_path_ops can make indexing complex jsonb
documents practical is fairly novel, so I'm not surprised that users
seem to imagine that containment does not work in a nested fashion.
"Existence" (the ? operator) actually has this limitation.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-10-29 21:02:17 | Re: Are we sufficiently clear that jsonb containment is nested? |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-10-29 20:29:15 | Re: Within CF app, "Bug Fixes" should be "Bug Fixes/Refactoring" |