On 11/12/20 11:12 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 8:59 AM Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net > <mailto:and...@dunslane.net>> wrote: > > > > So if we then say: > > > select x, j->>x from mytable; > > > you want both result columns named x? That seems like a recipe for > serious confusion. I really don't think this proposal has been > properly > thought through. > > > IMO It no worse than today's: > > select count(*), count(*) from (values (1), (2)) vals (v); > count | count > 2 | 2 >
I guess the difference here is that there's an extra level of indirection. So select x, j->>'x', j->>x from mytable would have 3 result columns all named x. cheers andrew
