Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On 20.04.22 18:53, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, that's another way to do it. I think though that the unresolved
>> question is whether or not we want the field name to appear in the output
>> when the field is null. I believe that I intentionally made it not appear
>> originally, so that that case could readily be distinguished. You could
>> argue that that would complicate life greatly for a _readPathTarget()
>> function, which is true, but I don't foresee that we'll need one.
> We could adapt the convention to print NULL values as "<>", like
Works for me.
regards, tom lane