> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 03:29:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 01:49:17PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> We can certainly reconsider the API for the parsing hook if there's > >> really a good reason for these to be different types, but it seems > >> like that would just be encouraging poor design. > > > To be more specific, this is the current behaviour (an example from the > > tests) and it doesn't seem right: > > > =# update test_jsonb_subscript > > set test_json['a'] = 3 where id = 1; > > UPDATE 1 > > =# select jsonb_typeof(test_json->'a') > > from test_jsonb_subscript where id = 1; > > jsonb_typeof > > -------------- > > string > > > I'm rather inclined to think that the result of subscripting a > jsonb (and therefore also the required source type for assignment) > should be jsonb, not just text. In that case, something like > update ... set jsoncol['a'] = 3 > would fail, because there's no cast from integer to jsonb. You'd > have to write one of > update ... set jsoncol['a'] = '3' > update ... set jsoncol['a'] = '"3"' > to clarify how you wanted the input to be interpreted. > But that seems like a good thing, just as it is for jsonb_in.
Yep, that makes sense, will go with this idea.
