On 5/23/16 4:45 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Jim Nasby mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com>>wrote:
On 5/23/16 11:55 AM, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
Fortunately, this seems quite easy to resolve by taking
advantage of our
ability to add js
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 5/23/16 11:55 AM, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
>
>> Fortunately, this seems quite easy to resolve by taking advantage of our
>> ability to add json_*(jsonb) form of the functions.
>>
>
> Another issue no one has mentioned is functions that ret
On 5/23/16 11:55 AM, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
Fortunately, this seems quite easy to resolve by taking advantage of our
ability to add json_*(jsonb) form of the functions.
Another issue no one has mentioned is functions that return JSON/JSONB.
IMO those should NOT be overloaded, because that
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter van Hardenberg writes:
> > Great question, Marko. If you can point me towards an example I'll take a
> > look, but I'll proceed with the current understanding and suggestions and
> > see what people have to say.
>
> I believe Marko's just
I'll look into it, thanks for the explanation.
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter van Hardenberg writes:
> > Great question, Marko. If you can point me towards an example I'll take a
> > look, but I'll proceed with the current understanding and suggestions and
> > see what
Peter van Hardenberg writes:
> Great question, Marko. If you can point me towards an example I'll take a
> look, but I'll proceed with the current understanding and suggestions and
> see what people have to say.
I believe Marko's just complaining about the case for unknown-type
arguments, for exa
Great question, Marko. If you can point me towards an example I'll take a
look, but I'll proceed with the current understanding and suggestions and
see what people have to say.
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On 2016-05-23 18:55, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
>
>> I talke
Marko Tiikkaja writes:
> On 2016-05-23 18:55, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
>> Anyone have any concerns or suggestions?
> What about cases like json_whatever($1) which previously worked but
> will now be ambiguous? (Or will they somehow not be ambiguous?)
Good point, that would have to be look
On 2016-05-23 18:55, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
I talked this over with Andrew who had no objections and suggested I float
it on the list before writing a patch. Looks pretty straightforward, just a
few new data rows in pg_proc.h.
Anyone have any concerns or suggestions?
What about cases like
Peter van Hardenberg writes:
> I talked this over with Andrew who had no objections and suggested I float
> it on the list before writing a patch. Looks pretty straightforward, just a
> few new data rows in pg_proc.h.
I think you might find that you need to add new C function entry points to
keep
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:14 AM, David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I noticed it was very easy to accidentally call the json_* form of JSON
>> manipulation functions with jsonb data as input.
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I noticed it was very easy to accidentally call the json_* form of JSON
> manipulation functions with jsonb data as input. This is pretty
> sub-optimal, since it involves rendering the jsonb then reparsing it and
> call
Hi there,
I noticed it was very easy to accidentally call the json_* form of JSON
manipulation functions with jsonb data as input. This is pretty
sub-optimal, since it involves rendering the jsonb then reparsing it and
calling the json_* form of the function.
Fortunately, this seems quite easy to
13 matches
Mail list logo
