From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ryan Pedela <rpedela(at)datalanche(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ilya Ashchepkov <koctep(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: jsonb concatenate operator's semantics seem questionable |
Date: | 2015-05-18 19:21:34 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSeOOpJdgPusxDnD4STn2arbiEDhoMgdQr26G4fP_5a=Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> OK, you've flagellated this deceased equine enough that I'm calling the
> ASPCA. I get that you're unhappy that we don't have deep append.
> Everyone gets this. I simply don't care; shallow append is better than
> no append at all, and having shallow append does not block deep append
> from happening in 9.6.
I never expressed disagreement with having shallow append.
> The only question worth discussing is whether we change the operator to
> "+" (or, for that matter, something else). I've seen your vote on this,
> so, does anyone else have an opinion on "+" vs. "||"? Preferably with a
> justification with some kind of grounding?
My argument has very good grounding. The "||" UPDATE idiom from hstore
does not and cannot work in a practical way with jsonb's current ||
operator (at least for the large majority of use cases). It could, it
just doesn't. I don't want users to make the same association that I
did, which, based on the total lack of documentation for the new
operator, they easily could.
What is hard to understand about that?
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-05-18 19:28:32 | Re: Disabling trust/ident authentication configure option |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-05-18 19:18:30 | Re: upper planner path-ification |