Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:32:45PM +0400, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > It's easy to add support of other operations to hash_ops, so it will > be on par with default GIN opclass, at the price of bigger size. We > can add it later to contrib/jsonbext. > > I'm mostly worrying about changing semantics of s

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

It's easy to add support of other operations to hash_ops, so it will be on par with default GIN opclass, at the price of bigger size. We can add it later to contrib/jsonbext. I'm mostly worrying about changing semantics of scalar. On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sa

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > What did you decide about hashing values in indexes vs. putting them in > literally? There are two GIN opclasses supplied. There is a default, which supports more operators (various "existence" operators - see the documentation). There is an

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 01:53:06PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Attached is v12. I think I've brought this as far as I can. > > This is mostly just bug fixes, and some additional refactoring. I've > incorporated Andres' feedback. The only points that I think worth > noting are: > > * The docum

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > I didn't like the _state->state stuff either, but I think you changed the > wrong name - it's the field name in the struct that needs changing. What > you've done is inconsistent with the common idiom in jsonfuncs.c. Okay. I've changed the

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On 03/19/2014 06:57 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote: * Jsonb vs JsonbValue is just bad, the latter needs to be renamed, and there needs to be a very clear explanation about why two forms exist and what each is used for. I've pushed some co

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > * Jsonb vs JsonbValue is just bad, the latter needs to be renamed, and > there needs to be a very clear explanation about why two forms exist > and what each is used for. I've pushed some comments to Github that further clarify the disti

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > I've pushed one commit with minor fixes, and one with several FIXMEs to > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=users/andresfreund/postgres.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/jsonb_and_hstore Cool. > * Jsonb vs JsonbValue is just bad, the latter nee

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On 03/19/2014 03:58 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote: * Jsonb vs JsonbValue is just bad, the latter needs to be renamed, and there needs to be a very clear explanation about why two forms exist and what each is used for. Agreed. We should p

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On 2014-03-19 09:55:03 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 03/19/2014 09:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > * The whole datastructure doesn't have any sensible highlevel > > documentation. > > Explain ... ? I'm planning on improving the docs through the beta > period for this, so can you explain what k

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On 03/19/2014 09:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > * The whole datastructure doesn't have any sensible highlevel > documentation. Explain ... ? I'm planning on improving the docs through the beta period for this, so can you explain what kind of docs we're missing here? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL E

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

Hi, On 2014-03-13 17:00:33 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Peter Geoghegan has been doing a lot of great cleanup of the jsonb code, > after moving in the bits we wanted from nested hstore. You can see the > current state of the code at > I

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

Alexander will take a look on TriConsistent function. On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 03/16/2014 04:10 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan >> wrote: >>> >>> I'll be travelling a good bit of tomorrow (Friday), but I hope P

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On 03/16/2014 04:10 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I'll be travelling a good bit of tomorrow (Friday), but I hope Peter has finished by the time I am back on deck late tomorrow and that I am able to commit this on Saturday. I asked Andrew to

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status - 'JsonbValue' has no member named 'size'

On Sun, March 16, 2014 13:23, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > [ jsonb-12.patch ] patch applies; compiles, and builds, but contrib installs with this error: make[1]: *** No rule to make target `hstore--1.2.sql', needed by `installdata'. Stop. make: *** [install-hstore-recurse] Error 2 After that an i

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status - ‘JsonbValue’ has no member named ‘size’

On Sun, March 16, 2014 09:50, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote: >>> [ jsonb-11.patch.gz ] >> >> This doesn't quite compile: > > Sorry. I guess Andrew's earlier merging of master was insufficient. > > Attached revision fixes bitrot. > Patch applies, but

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On Sun, March 16, 2014 09:10, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > [ jsonb-11.patch.gz ] This doesn't quite compile: [...] patching file src/include/catalog/pg_amop.h patching file src/include/catalog/pg_amproc.h Hunk #3 FAILED at 358. 1 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/include/catalog/

[HACKERS] jsonb status

Peter Geoghegan has been doing a lot of great cleanup of the jsonb code, after moving in the bits we wanted from nested hstore. You can see the current state of the code at I've been working through some of his changes, I will probab