On 12/06/2015 10:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
I see. The reference from pg_operator to pg_proc is by OID rather than
function name, so I didn't find them. Is that because the function is
overloaded?
Yeah, I suppose so --- regproc can't resolve overloaded function names.
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I see. The reference from pg_operator to pg_proc is by OID rather than
> function name, so I didn't find them. Is that because the function is
> overloaded?
Yeah, I suppose so --- regproc can't resolve overloaded function names.
> It's kind of odd that these are the
On 12/6/15 9:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> The new function jsonb_delete does not appear to be documented. Is that
>> intentional?
>
>> The only thing that's documented is the #- operator for
>> jsonb_delete_path. But jsonb_delete(jsonb, text) and
>> jsonb_delete(jsonb, i
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> The new function jsonb_delete does not appear to be documented. Is that
> intentional?
> The only thing that's documented is the #- operator for
> jsonb_delete_path. But jsonb_delete(jsonb, text) and
> jsonb_delete(jsonb, int) are not documented. (Those don't have an
The new function jsonb_delete does not appear to be documented. Is that
intentional?
The only thing that's documented is the #- operator for
jsonb_delete_path. But jsonb_delete(jsonb, text) and
jsonb_delete(jsonb, int) are not documented. (Those don't have an
operator.)
--
Sent via pgsql-hac
