On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 8:59 AM Andrew Dunstan <and...@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 David J.
