Re: Further issues with jsonb semantics, documentation

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Further issues with jsonb semantics, documentation
Date: 2015-06-05 17:39:42
Message-ID: CAM3SWZS92gtm4BArJ=0474=rvKA72cVV6jyHR4nzXBwH25zM9Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2015-06-05 17:45:51 Re: Is it possible to have a "fast-write" Index?
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2015-06-05 17:30:42 Re: pg_stat_*_columns?