Re: '{"x": 42, "y": null}'::jsonb != '{"x": 42}'::jsonb ... Really? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Thomas Kellerer
Subject Re: '{"x": 42, "y": null}'::jsonb != '{"x": 42}'::jsonb ... Really?
Date
Msg-id 2ced3259-2cb5-9ecc-3157-69b6cd3f51c8@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to '{"x": 42, "y": null}'::jsonb != '{"x": 42}'::jsonb ... Really?  (Bryn Llewellyn <bryn@yugabyte.com>)
Responses Re: '{"x": 42, "y": null}'::jsonb != '{"x": 42}'::jsonb ... Really?
List pgsql-general
Bryn Llewellyn schrieb am 04.06.2022 um 03:41:
> Am I missing a use case where an object with a key-value pair with a
> JSON null value is meaningfully different from one where the key is
> simply absent?
It seems the JSON specification doesn't actually define equality.
But the JSON patch RFC 6902[1] defines the equality of two objects
as:

   objects: are considered equal if they contain the same number of
   members, and if each member can be considered equal to a member in
   the other object, by comparing their keys (as strings) and their
   values (using this list of type-specific rules).

As {"x": 42, "y": null} and {"x": 42} do not contain the same number
of members, I think Postgres' behaviour is correct.

Thomas


[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6902#section-4.6



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Bryn Llewellyn
Date:
Subject: Re: '{"x": 42, "y": null}'::jsonb != '{"x": 42}'::jsonb ... Really?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Outer joins and NULLs (old subject "ERROR: failed to find conversion function from key_vals_nn to record[]")