On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> Sure. I thought we'd covered this but it's possible that we didn't, or that
> it got rebroken. There have been complaints about the limitation on values
> containing jbvBinary, so let's just remove it if that can be done simply, as
> it seems to be a not uncommonly encountered problem.
>
> Are you going to submit a patch for that?
I'll try and come up with something. It's not a trivial fix.
> Assuming the above fix we won't have to teach it anything new, right?
I'm not 100% sure, but I think not.
>> On that topic, I think it's sloppy that "Table
>> 9-41. Additional jsonb Operators" isn't clear about the fact that the
>> "operator - text" op matches things on the same basis as the existence
>> operators -- notice how the existence operator notes with emphasis
>> that it cares about array *string* values only.
>
>
> OK, please submit a patch that you think clears it up.
I was going to better document the new operators anyway, so I'll get
this in passing.
> The heading on jsonb_op.c (note spelling) suggests that it's for indexed
> operations. I don't mind rearranging the code layout to something people
> think more logical, but I also don't want to engage in unnecessary code
> churn. I'm not that religious about the organization.
I see what you mean.
> It was always known that some cases would not work with TESTS - that was
> part of Tom's reservation about the whole thing. You can say
Sure, but you added it, and you mentioned jsonb in the commit message,
before jsonb was even committed to the master branch. :-)
--
Peter Geoghegan