On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I am on vacation right now, but I might have some time tomorrow to deal with
it. If not, it will be Sunday or Monday when I get to it.
Is this still pending?
Yes.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Where are we on this? This is currently a 9.5 release blocker.
I am on vacation right now, but I might have some time tomorrow to deal with
it. If not, it will be Sunday or Monday when I get to it.
Is this still
On 07/17/2015 02:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Where are we on this? This is currently a 9.5 release blocker.
I am on vacation right now, but I might have some time tomorrow to deal with
it. If not, it will be Sunday or
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
OK, I have committed this and updated the open issues list on the wiki.
Thanks, Andrew.
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On 07/17/2015 02:49 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 07/17/2015 02:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net
wrote:
Where are we on this? This is currently a 9.5 release blocker.
I am on vacation right now, but I might have some time tomorrow
On 07/09/2015 04:10 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Please submit a patch to adjust the treatment of negative integers in the
old functions to be
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Please submit a patch to adjust the treatment of negative integers in the
old functions to be consistent with their treatment in the new functions.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Please submit a patch to adjust the treatment of negative integers in the
old functions to be consistent with their treatment in the new functions.
i.e. in the range [-n,-1] they should refer to the corresponding
On 6/5/15 3:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Jim Nasby wrote:
On 6/5/15 2:08 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
That's a good point, and it won't get any better if/when we add the json
point support in 9.6 since the syntax would be something like select
jsonb '{a:1, b:2, c: {a: 2}}' - '/c/a'; and we will
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
BTW, there is a bug here -- strtol() needs additional defenses [1]
(before casting to int):
postgres=# select jsonb_set('[1, 2, 3, 4,
5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]',
'{9223372036854775806}'::text[], 'Input
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Here's some code for the count piece of that.
Thanks. I'll look into integrating this with what I have.
BTW, on reflection I'm not so sure about my decision to not touch the
logic within jsonb_delete_idx() (commit
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
OK, pushed, although you'd have to be trying really hard to break this.
Still, it's reasonable to defend against.
I was trying really hard. :-)
Thanks
--
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 06/10/2015 04:02 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Sorry for the delay on this. I've been mostly off the grid, having an all
too rare visit from Tom Mr Enum Dunstan, and I misunderstood what you were
suggesting,
Thank you
On 06/05/2015 01:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 06/05/2015 01:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.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
On 06/05/2015 04:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Yeah, Good point. Actually, if my memory serves me correctly (always a
dubious bet), the avoidance of that kind of ambiguity is why we
introduced the # and # operators in the first place, after going
round and
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:32 , Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
'some jsonb value' - '{foo,bar}' is already ambiguous - the RH
operand
could be a single text datum or a text array.
Hmm, but that's not in 9.4, so we can still tweak it if necessary.
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 06/04/2015 03:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I'm just skimming here, but if a jsonb_path type is being proposed,
perhaps it would be better not to have operators that take text or
text[] as second argument. We can provide that functionality with just
functions. For
Jim Nasby wrote:
On 6/5/15 2:08 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
That's a good point, and it won't get any better if/when we add the json
point support in 9.6 since the syntax would be something like select
jsonb '{a:1, b:2, c: {a: 2}}' - '/c/a'; and we will again
silently do nothing. That's going to
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Yeah, Good point. Actually, if my memory serves me correctly (always a
dubious bet), the avoidance of that kind of ambiguity is why we
introduced the # and # operators in the first place, after going
round and round for a while on what the API
On 06/05/2015 02:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
'some jsonb value' - '{foo,bar}' is already ambiguous - the RH operand
could be a single text datum or a text array.
Hmm, but that's not in 9.4, so we can still tweak it if necessary.
Consider this jsonb datum. Nobody in their right mind would
On 6/5/15 2:08 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
That's a good point, and it won't get any better if/when we add the json
point support in 9.6 since the syntax would be something like select
jsonb '{a:1, b:2, c: {a: 2}}' - '/c/a'; and we will again
silently do nothing. That's going to cause bugs in
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
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
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
So probably the least invasive change would be to rename the text[] variant
operator to something like #- and rename the corresponding function to
jsonb_delete_path.
We could also decide not to keep an operator at all,
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
jsonb_delete() should certainly be able to traverse objects, but it's
much less clear that it should be able to *traverse* arrays (affecting
arrays is a different story, though). That's why I proposed not
supporting
On 06/04/2015 03:10 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
I've noticed some more issues with the jsonb documentation, and the
new jsonb stuff generally. I didn't set out to give Andrew feedback on
the semantics weeks after feature
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Just in case it's not clear: I am not at all happy.
I've offered to help you with several of the issue I raised; I had
intended to offer more help.
The issues I raise seem pretty substantive to me. I'm trying to make
sure
On 06/04/2015 04:13 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I'm just skimming here, but if a jsonb_path type is being proposed,
Is this not the purpose of JSQuery?
https://code.google.com/p/gwtquery/wiki/JsQuery
No, it
On 06/04/2015 11:33 AM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On 6/4/15 8:43 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
You are conflating two different things here, quite pointlessly. The RH
operand of ?| is not a path, whereas the RH operand of this - variant
is. The fact that they are both text arrays doesn't mean that they
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
I would like these new-to-9.5 deletion operators to work at the top
level only, like operator jsonb ? text and operator jsonb ?| text,
sharing their idea of a key, __including that string array elements
are keys__. We
On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I'm just skimming here, but if a jsonb_path type is being proposed,
Is this not the purpose of JSQuery?
https://code.google.com/p/gwtquery/wiki/JsQuery
David
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On 6/4/15 8:43 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
You are conflating two different things here, quite pointlessly. The RH
operand of ?| is not a path, whereas the RH operand of this - variant
is. The fact that they are both text arrays doesn't mean that they
should mean the same thing. And this is really
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
I've noticed some more issues with the jsonb documentation, and the
new jsonb stuff generally. I didn't set out to give Andrew feedback on
the semantics weeks after feature freeze, but unfortunately this feels
like
I'm just skimming here, but if a jsonb_path type is being proposed,
perhaps it would be better not to have operators that take text or
text[] as second argument. We can provide that functionality with just
functions. For example, it will be confusing to have
jsonb 'some json value' -
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I'm just skimming here, but if a jsonb_path type is being proposed,
perhaps it would be better not to have operators that take text or
text[] as second argument. We can provide that functionality with just
On 06/03/2015 10:02 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
I've noticed some more issues with the jsonb documentation, and the
new jsonb stuff generally. I didn't set out to give Andrew feedback on
the semantics weeks after feature freeze, but unfortunately this feels
like another discussion that we need
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
Consider this case:
postgres=# select '{c:5, a:6, b:7}'::jsonb - 1;
?column?
--
{a: 6, c: 5}
(1 row)
Clearly anyone expecting the value a to be removed here would be in
for a surprise. Moreover,
I've noticed some more issues with the jsonb documentation, and the
new jsonb stuff generally. I didn't set out to give Andrew feedback on
the semantics weeks after feature freeze, but unfortunately this feels
like another discussion that we need to have now rather than later.
operator jsonb -
37 matches
Mail list logo
