I checked a code, and I have only two small objection - a name "jsonb_object_two_arg" is not good - maybe "json_object_keys_values" ?
It's consistent with the existing json_object_two_arg. In all cases I think I kept the names the same except for changing "json" to "jsonb". Note that these _two_arg functions are not visible at the SQL level - they are only visible in the C code.
I'm happy to be guided by others in changing or keeping these names.
Next: there are no tests for to_jsonb function.
Oh, my bad. I'll add some.
Thank for the review.
Here is a new patch that includes documentation and addresses all these issues, except that I didn't change the name of jsonb_object_two_arg to keep it consistent with the name of json_object_two_arg. I'm happy to change both if people feel it matters.
I checked last patch "jsonbmissingfunc5.patch" and I have no any objections:
1. This jsonb API is consistent with current JSON API, so we surely would to this functionality
2. A implementation is clean without side effects and without impact on current code.
3. Patching and compilation are without any issues and warnings
4. Source code respects PostgreSQL coding rules
5. All regress tests was passed without problems
6. Documentation was build without problems
7. Patch contains necessary regress tests
8. Patch contains necessary documentation for new functions.