On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Uh, no, I see one container and a property. If we do just >>> >>> <Filter><Expr>(f1 > 0)</Expr></Filter> >>> >>> then where do we put additional information about the expression >>> when the time comes? > >> I would assume you would just write: > >> <Filter><Text>(f1 > 0)</Text><Other-Stuff>thing!</Other-Stuff></Filter> > > Perhaps the issue would be clearer in JSON notation. We have > > "Filter": "(f1 > 0)" > > What I suggest is > > "Filter": { "Text": "(f1 > 0)" } > > I don't see where you're going to shoehorn in any additional information > without the container, and once you have the container you need to name > the property, no?
I agree. The JSON looks perfect to me. I may be thick as a post here and say "oh, I'm a moron" when you explain this to me, but I still don't understand why that would require the XML notation to interpose an intermediate node. Why can't "filter" node itself can be the labelled container? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers