Re: jsonb concatenate operator's semantics seem questionable - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: jsonb concatenate operator's semantics seem questionable
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZSeOOpJdgPusxDnD4STn2arbiEDhoMgdQr26G4fP_5a=Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: jsonb concatenate operator's semantics seem questionable  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: jsonb concatenate operator's semantics seem questionable  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Re: jsonb concatenate operator's semantics seem questionable  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> OK, you've flagellated this deceased equine enough that I'm calling the
> ASPCA.  I get that you're unhappy that we don't have deep append.
> Everyone gets this.  I simply don't care; shallow append is better than
> no append at all, and having shallow append does not block deep append
> from happening in 9.6.

I never expressed disagreement with having shallow append.

> The only question worth discussing is whether we change the operator to
> "+" (or, for that matter, something else).  I've seen your vote on this,
> so, does anyone else have an opinion on "+" vs. "||"?  Preferably with a
> justification with some kind of grounding?

My argument has very good grounding. The "||" UPDATE idiom from hstore
does not and cannot work in a practical way with jsonb's current ||
operator (at least for the large majority of use cases). It could, it
just doesn't. I don't want users to make the same association that I
did, which, based on the total lack of documentation for the new
operator, they easily could.

What is hard to understand about that?

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: upper planner path-ification
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Disabling trust/ident authentication configure option