| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Further issues with jsonb semantics, documentation |
| Date: | 2015-06-04 15:33:21 |
| Message-ID: | 55706FC1.802@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/4/15 8:43 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> You are conflating two different things here, quite pointlessly. The RH
> operand of ?| is not a path, whereas the RH operand of this - variant
> is. The fact that they are both text arrays doesn't mean that they
> should mean the same thing. And this is really the whole problem with
> the rest of your analysis.
Has the idea of a specific json_path datatype been discussed? I feel it
would add a lot of clarity to the operators. It would also make it easy
to have an array of paths, something that's difficult to do today
because a path can be an arbitrary length and arrays don't support that.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shulgin, Oleksandr | 2015-06-04 15:49:26 | Re: Streaming replication for psycopg2 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-06-04 15:30:33 | Re: RFC: Remove contrib entirely |