On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:32:49AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 11/12/20 11:12 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: > > IMO It no worse than today's: > > > > select count(*), count(*) from (values (1), (2)) vals (v); > > count | count > > 2 | 2 > > > > > I guess the difference here is that there's an extra level of > indirection. So > > select x, j->>'x', j->>x from mytable > > would have 3 result columns all named x.
Yeah, I feel it would have to be something a user specifically asks for, and we would have to say it would be the first or a random match of one of the keys. Ultimately, it might be so awkward as to be useless. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee