From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | ap(at)zip(dot)com(dot)au, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #14178: output of jsonb_object and json_object doesn't match textually |
Date: | 2016-06-07 07:55:10 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=09NJt4-NAm9Z6j9fVOGh9nFqHJ852SoJf_dhq3eBeduw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:42 AM, <ap(at)zip(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
>>>> I think json_object should provide similar output. Consistency is nice
>>>> aesthetically and as being in line with the principle of least surprise.
>>>> Its lack may lead to possible unpleasant results if anyone tries to deal
>>>> with a JSON structure as TEXT (for whatever reason).
>>>
>>> That's a debatable point, and as any output is legal json it does not
>>> actually hurt one way or another. However, as json_object has been
>>> introduced at the same time as jsonb, I'd tend as well to think that
>>> consistency is a good idea if possible, see the patch attached.
>>
>> (It's a shame that json_build_object and json_object_agg also don't
>> agree on where to put whitespace...)
>
> Right, missed that, as well as json_object_two_arg.
One more difference is that json_object_agg uses "{ " and " }" while
the other functions use "{" and "}".
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | boa | 2016-06-07 09:16:18 | BUG #14180: Segmentation fault on replication slave |
Previous Message | dmigowski | 2016-06-07 07:50:36 | BUG #14179: Not enough info in error message |