On 06/10/2015 06:08 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
WFM. So the idea is that if json_pointer is implemented as a type, then
we'll have an operator for "jsonb - json_pointer"?
Right.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscr
On 06/10/2015 12:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> We need to remove the ambiguity with jsonb_delete() by renaming the
> variant that takes a text[] (meaning a path) as the second argument to
> jsonb_delete_path. That seems uncontroversial.
Speaking as a user ... works for me.
> We need to rename th
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> Future plans that might affect this issue: possible implementations of
> Json Pointer (rfc 6901), Json Patch (rfc 6902) and Json Merge Patch (rfc
> 7396). The last one is on this list for completeness - it seems to me a
> lot less useful than the others, but I included
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:00 , Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
This is an attempt to summarize What I think is now the lone
outstanding jsonb issue.
We need to remove the ambiguity with jsonb_delete() by renaming the
variant that takes a text[] (meaning a path) as the second argument
to jsonb_delete_p
This is an attempt to summarize What I think is now the lone outstanding
jsonb issue.
We need to remove the ambiguity with jsonb_delete() by renaming the
variant that takes a text[] (meaning a path) as the second argument to
jsonb_delete_path. That seems uncontroversial.
We need to rename th
