| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: json accessors |
| Date: | 2012-12-05 19:51:19 |
| Message-ID: | 50BFA5B7.5030707@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/05/2012 01:48 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>> I'm sorry what I have offered isn't what you want, but plenty of other people have told me it will go a long way meeting their needs.
> *Sigh.* I guess I have not been clear.
>
> The stuff you propose is *awesome*. I love it. The syntax with the chaining operators warms my heart, and I can’t wait to make *extensive* use of it in my procedural code. Maybe I would never *need* to do column queries of JSON contents often enough to require an expensive index.
OK, sorry if I misunderstood. I guess I'm trying pretty hard to
concentrate on what can be accomplished now, and other people are
talking about blue sky possibilities.
>
> So I'm happy with this stuff, as long as it does not get in the way of supporting indexing at some point in the future. I can’t wait to start using it!
I don't see why it should get in the way of anything like that. If
anything, the parser design changes I have proposed should make later
development much easier.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-12-05 19:52:31 | Re: json accessors |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-12-05 19:48:07 | Re: json accessors |