Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I would be fine with adding a *compact* example of this kind to the
>> table that begins section 8.14.3. I probably would not back-patch it,
>> because the absence of that example is not an error in the
>> documentation, but I will not complain if someone else does.
> How about the attached? It's a compact refinement of my original
> example of more complicated jsonb containment.
You seem to have injected unrelated text into the middle of a discussion.
I think what you added is fine, but not where you put it; it would make
more sense as a standalone para.
I think the existing text is largely my fault, so I'll do something with
this.
> I still think it would be a good idea to go back to 9.4. I have reason
> to believe that people are getting confused on this point.
You didn't present evidence backing that up, but I agree that
clarification is a sufficient reason to back-patch doc changes.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
