On Feb 13, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
> I don't have any problem getting rid of the json_ prefixes, except for > json_agg which I think should keep it (c.f. string_agg, array_agg). I think that's an unfortunately naming forced on us by the SQL standard, and it doesn't mean we have to use it anyway. > I will take some of this under advisement. Note that json_populate_record's > name was taken from hstore's populate_record, so if we're trying to use > similar names then it should possibly be just populate_record. Or if that's > still a bit long I would accept to_record. to_record()++ > I think Merlin's suggestion if unwrap might be good. Or simply "elements()" > might work. Perhaps unwrap() returns a set and elements() returns an array? >> AS for #> and #>>, what about @> and @>> instead? Or am I just too much the >> Perl hacker for thinking that @ is a nice mnemonic for "array"? > > Probably. I deliberately avoided @> because it's used elsewhere to mean > "contains" and using it for something quite different here might be confusing. I can see that, especially if you end up adding exists(): @> could be its operator. > I think this is beyond bikeshedding. Apparently you have missed the existence > of json_object_keys(). Oh, I forgot it returned a set rather than an array. So I suggest: values() - Returns an array keys() - Returns an array And: unwrap() - Returns a set skeys() - Returns a set Er, okay, so skeys() sucks alongside the others here. If we were to steal from hstore, these would be: svals() - Returns a set skeys() - Returns a set avals() - Returns an array akeys() - Returns an array I don’t love those, but if we want to follow precedent… > The new API makes many or all of these things possible to do with relative > ease as extensions (See my possibly upcoming talk on the subject.) I’ll be there, yo! David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
