On 11/08/2014 12:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
On 11/08/2014 12:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
That would be my druthers. But given the lack of complaints, maybe we
should just stick to the more-backwards-compatible behavior until someone
does complain. Thoughts?
Wouldn't that would mean we might not pick up the expected aliases in
select row_to_json(q) from (select a,b from foo) as q(x,y)
? If so, I'm definitely in favor of fixing this now.
Well, it's inconsistent now. In existing releases you might or might not
get x,y:
regression=# create table foo (f1 int, f2 int);
CREATE TABLE
regression=# insert into foo values(1,2);
INSERT 0 1
regression=# select row_to_json(q) from (select f1 as a, f2 as b from foo) as
q(x,y);
row_to_json
---------------
{"x":1,"y":2}
(1 row)
regression=# select row_to_json(q) from (select f1 as a, f2 as b from foo
offset 0) as q(x,y);
row_to_json
-----------------
{"f1":1,"f2":2}
(1 row)
That seems like something that's worth fixing going forward, but it's a
lot harder to make the case that we should change it in back branches.
Sure. As long as we fix the empty alias issue in the back branches, just
fixing this prospectively seems fine. But I don't think we should wait
for more complaints.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
