2014-09-29 21:23 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>: > > > 2014-09-27 14:00 GMT+02:00 Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net>: > >> Andrew, all, >> >> * Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: >> > I should have been paying a bit more attention to the recent work on >> > adding an ignore_nulls option to row_to_json(). Here are some >> > belated thought. I apologize to Pavel and Stephen for not having >> > commented earlier. >> >> No problem at all and thanks for continuing to think about it! We >> certainly still have quite a bit of time til 9.5 to get this right. >> >> > I think this is really a bandaid, and it will fail to catch lots of >> > cases. Several examples: >> >> As discussed on IRC- I agree. I tend to think of JSON objects as >> relatively simple hstore-like structures and so hadn't considered the >> complex structure case (as I'm guessing Pavel hadn't either). >> >> > I think a much more comprehensive solution would be preferable. What >> > I have in mind is something like >> > >> > json_strip_null_fields(json) -> json >> > >> > and a similar function for jsonb. >> >> Right, this makes sense to me. >> > > It is better than nothing, but it is not nice for JSON due 2x parsing. > Probably it is not issue for jsonb. > > It is not nice, but I have not better .. and it will be faster than any > custom solution in plpgsql. > > Personally, I am not sure, maybe is better to fix row_to_json >
we can use a different name like row_to_json_strip_null > > Regards > > Pavel > > >> >> > These would operate recursively. There is a downside, in that they >> > would be required to reprocess the json/jsonb. But adding an option >> > like this to all the json generator functions would be seriously >> > ugly, especially since they are mostly aggregate functions or >> > variadic functions. At least in the jsonb case the cost of >> > reprocessing is likely to be fairly low. >> >> Yeah, I don't see adding this option to all json generator functions as >> making a lot of sense but rather just to the select few things which it >> really makes sense for and then having a function which can be used by >> users to do the same for results from other operations. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Stephen >> > >
