On 11/12/20 11:12 AM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 8:59 AM Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net
> <mailto:andrew@dunslane.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
> So if we then say:
>
>
> select x, j->>x from mytable;
>
>
> you want both result columns named x? That seems like a recipe for
> serious confusion. I really don't think this proposal has been
> properly
> thought through.
>
>
> IMO It no worse than today's:
>
> select count(*), count(*) from (values (1), (2)) vals (v);
> count | count
> 2 | 2
>
I guess the difference here is that there's an extra level of
indirection. So
select x, j->>'x', j->>x from mytable
would have 3 result columns all named x.
cheers
andrew
