On Feb 13, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> I don't have any problem getting rid of the json_ prefixes, except for json_agg which I think should keep it (c.f.
string_agg,array_agg).
I think that's an unfortunately naming forced on us by the SQL standard, and it doesn't mean we have to use it anyway.
> I will take some of this under advisement. Note that json_populate_record's name was taken from hstore's
populate_record,so if we're trying to use similar names then it should possibly be just populate_record. Or if that's
stilla bit long I would accept to_record.
to_record()++
> I think Merlin's suggestion if unwrap might be good. Or simply "elements()" might work.
Perhaps unwrap() returns a set and elements() returns an array?
>> AS for #> and #>>, what about @> and @>> instead? Or am I just too much the Perl hacker for thinking that @ is a
nicemnemonic for "array"?
>
> Probably. I deliberately avoided @> because it's used elsewhere to mean "contains" and using it for something quite
differenthere might be confusing.
I can see that, especially if you end up adding exists(): @> could be its operator.
> I think this is beyond bikeshedding. Apparently you have missed the existence of json_object_keys().
Oh, I forgot it returned a set rather than an array. So I suggest:
values() - Returns an array keys() - Returns an array
And:
unwrap() - Returns a set skeys() - Returns a set
Er, okay, so skeys() sucks alongside the others here. If we were to steal from hstore, these would be:
svals() - Returns a set skeys() - Returns a set avals() - Returns an array akeys() - Returns an array
I don’t love those, but if we want to follow precedent…
> The new API makes many or all of these things possible to do with relative ease as extensions (See my possibly
upcomingtalk on the subject.)
I’ll be there, yo!
David
