Re: Further issues with jsonb semantics, documentation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Further issues with jsonb semantics, documentation
Date: 2015-06-05 20:48:17
Message-ID: 27632.1433537297@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Yeah, Good point. Actually, if my memory serves me correctly (always a
> dubious bet), the avoidance of that kind of ambiguity is why we
> introduced the #> and #>> operators in the first place, after going
> round and round for a while on what the API would look like. I should
> have remembered that when this came around. Mea culpa.

> So probably the least invasive change would be to rename the text[]
> variant operator to something like "#-" and rename the corresponding
> function to jsonb_delete_path.

Not sure that's a great choice of operator name; consider for example
select 4#-1;
It's not immediately obvious whether the "-" is meant as a separate
unary minus. There are heuristics in the lexer that try to deal with
cases like this, but it doesn't seem like a good plan to double down
on such heuristics always doing the right thing.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-06-05 20:56:18 Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-06-05 20:40:39 Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1