Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 03/02/2016 08:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> AFAICT this is a simple thinko in the hash_object_field_end() callback,
>> as per attached patch that fixes this and doesn't break any existing
>> regression test cases. Andrew, do you concur that this is correct,
>> or is there something I'm missing about the tracking of lex_level?
> Looks like you're right. lex_level is incremented at object/array start
> and decremented at object/array end. So keys of the outermost object
> will be at lex_level 1, and we shouldn't be using anything at a higher
> level. I guess we should add something like this as an extra regression
> test.
Yeah, I was going to adopt exactly this test case ...
regards, tom lane
