On 3/20/16 2:29 PM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Do you have an updated patch ready?
No, I'm afraid it will not be ready for Monday.
I have marked this "returned with feedback". Please feel free to submit
a reworked patch for 9.7!
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailin
> Do you have an updated patch ready?
No, I'm afraid it will not be ready for Monday.
Hi Dmitry,
On 3/3/16 5:31 AM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>> If the patch were proposing a similar amount of new infrastructure to
>> support some datatype-extensible concept of subscripting, I'd be much
>> happier about it.
>
> Well, actually, I agree with that. I can try to rework the patch to
> achie
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:31 AM, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, actually, I agree with that. I can try to rework the patch to achieve
> this goal.
Good idea.
I wonder, having taken a quick look at the patch, how this works?:
+select * from test_jsonb_subscript where
test_jso
> If the patch were proposing a similar amount of new infrastructure to
> support some datatype-extensible concept of subscripting, I'd be much
> happier about it.
Well, actually, I agree with that. I can try to rework the patch to achieve
this goal.
On 3/2/16 6:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
If the patch were proposing a similar amount of new infrastructure to
support some datatype-extensible concept of subscripting, I'd be much
happier about it.
+1
I believe there's been some handwaving in the past about extensible
approaches to subscripting, t
Vitaly Burovoy writes:
> I'd like to be a reviewer for the patch. It does not look big and very
> invasive.
> Is it a final decision or it has a chance? If something there hurts
> committers, it can end up as "Rejected with feedback" (since the patch
> is already in the CF[1])?
Well, it is prett
On 1/19/16, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>
>> I've cleaned up the code, created a separate JsonbRef node (and there are
>> a
>> lot of small changes because of that), abandoned an idea of "deep
>> nesting"
>> of assignments (because it doesn't relate to jsonb subscription, is more
On 20 January 2016 at 02:14, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>
> > I've cleaned up the code, created a separate JsonbRef node (and there
> are a
> > lot of small changes because of that), abandoned an idea of "deep
> nesting"
> > of assignments (because it doesn't relate to jsonb sub
Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> I've cleaned up the code, created a separate JsonbRef node (and there are a
> lot of small changes because of that), abandoned an idea of "deep nesting"
> of assignments (because it doesn't relate to jsonb subscription, is more
> about the
> "jsonb_set" function, and anyway
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've cleaned up the code, created a separate JsonbRef node (and there are a
> lot of small changes because of that), abandoned an idea of "deep nesting"
> of assignments (because it doesn't relate to jsonb subscription,
Hi,
Here is a reworked version of patch for jsonb subscription.
There weren't many changes in functionality:
=# create TEMP TABLE test_jsonb_subscript (
id int,
test_json jsonb
);
=# insert into test_jsonb_subscript values
(1, '{}'),
(2, '{}');
=# update test_jsonb_subscript set t
12 matches
Mail list logo
