> sham...@gmx.net wrote:
>
>> b...@yugabyte.com wrote:
>>
>> 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:
>
> www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6902#section-4.6
>
> 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.
Thanks. I believe that I addressed this in a separate branch in this thread.
The distinction (between « "some key": null » and "some key" absent), which by
all means matters in some contexts, does not matter w.r.t. the requirements of
my (demo) app. And I've now proved (to myself, at least) that I can meet my
goal easily with existing Postgres features—especially "jsonb_strip_nulls()".
I hope that this means that we're all happy.
