From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | 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: | 2015-06-10 18:48:06 |
Message-ID: | 55788666.6080108@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/05/2015 01:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 06/05/2015 01:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> But I agree that it's not a great contribution to science,
>>>> especially since
>>>> the index will be applied to the list of elements in the somewhat
>>>> counter-intuitive storage order we use, and we could just raise an
>>>> error if
>>>> we try to apply integer delete to an object instead of an array.
>>> Cool. Do you want to write a patch, or should I?
>>>
>>> Also, what about negative array subscripting (making the 9.4-era
>>> "operator jsonb -> integer" operator support that for consistency with
>>> the new "operator jsonb - integer" operator)? Should I write the
>>> patch? Will you commit it if I do?
>> Please let me know if you want me to write these two patches.
>>
>
>
> Send the first one, I'm still thinking about the second one.
>
Sorry for the delay on this. I've been mostly off the grid, having an
all too rare visit from Tom "Mr Enum" Dunstan, and I misunderstood what
you were suggesting,
Please submit a patch to adjust the treatment of negative integers in
the old functions to be consistent with their treatment in the new
functions. i.e. in the range [-n,-1] they should refer to the
corresponding element counting from the right.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2015-06-10 19:00:14 | jsonb - path |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-06-10 17:58:34 | Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets |