Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:32:45PM +0400, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > It's easy to add support of other operations to hash_ops, so it will > be on par with default GIN opclass, at the price of bigger size. We > can add it later to contrib/jsonbext. > > I'm mostly worrying about changing semantics of s

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

It's easy to add support of other operations to hash_ops, so it will be on par with default GIN opclass, at the price of bigger size. We can add it later to contrib/jsonbext. I'm mostly worrying about changing semantics of scalar. On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sa

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > What did you decide about hashing values in indexes vs. putting them in > literally? There are two GIN opclasses supplied. There is a default, which supports more operators (various "existence" operators - see the documentation). There is an

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 01:53:06PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Attached is v12. I think I've brought this as far as I can. > > This is mostly just bug fixes, and some additional refactoring. I've > incorporated Andres' feedback. The only points that I think worth > noting are: > > * The docum

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > I didn't like the _state->state stuff either, but I think you changed the > wrong name - it's the field name in the struct that needs changing. What > you've done is inconsistent with the common idiom in jsonfuncs.c. Okay. I've changed the

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On 03/19/2014 06:57 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote: * Jsonb vs JsonbValue is just bad, the latter needs to be renamed, and there needs to be a very clear explanation about why two forms exist and what each is used for. I've pushed some co

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > * Jsonb vs JsonbValue is just bad, the latter needs to be renamed, and > there needs to be a very clear explanation about why two forms exist > and what each is used for. I've pushed some comments to Github that further clarify the disti

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > I've pushed one commit with minor fixes, and one with several FIXMEs to > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=users/andresfreund/postgres.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/jsonb_and_hstore Cool. > * Jsonb vs JsonbValue is just bad, the latter nee

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On 03/19/2014 03:58 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote: * Jsonb vs JsonbValue is just bad, the latter needs to be renamed, and there needs to be a very clear explanation about why two forms exist and what each is used for. Agreed. We should p

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On 2014-03-19 09:55:03 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 03/19/2014 09:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > * The whole datastructure doesn't have any sensible highlevel > > documentation. > > Explain ... ? I'm planning on improving the docs through the beta > period for this, so can you explain what k

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On 03/19/2014 09:28 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > * The whole datastructure doesn't have any sensible highlevel > documentation. Explain ... ? I'm planning on improving the docs through the beta period for this, so can you explain what kind of docs we're missing here? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL E

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

Hi, On 2014-03-13 17:00:33 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Peter Geoghegan has been doing a lot of great cleanup of the jsonb code, > after moving in the bits we wanted from nested hstore. You can see the > current state of the code at > I

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

Alexander will take a look on TriConsistent function. On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 03/16/2014 04:10 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan >> wrote: >>> >>> I'll be travelling a good bit of tomorrow (Friday), but I hope P

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On 03/16/2014 04:10 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I'll be travelling a good bit of tomorrow (Friday), but I hope Peter has finished by the time I am back on deck late tomorrow and that I am able to commit this on Saturday. I asked Andrew to

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status - 'JsonbValue' has no member named 'size'

On Sun, March 16, 2014 13:23, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > [ jsonb-12.patch ] patch applies; compiles, and builds, but contrib installs with this error: make[1]: *** No rule to make target `hstore--1.2.sql', needed by `installdata'. Stop. make: *** [install-hstore-recurse] Error 2 After that an i

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status - ‘JsonbValue’ has no member named ‘size’

On Sun, March 16, 2014 09:50, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Erik Rijkers wrote: >>> [ jsonb-11.patch.gz ] >> >> This doesn't quite compile: > > Sorry. I guess Andrew's earlier merging of master was insufficient. > > Attached revision fixes bitrot. > Patch applies, but

Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

On Sun, March 16, 2014 09:10, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > [ jsonb-11.patch.gz ] This doesn't quite compile: [...] patching file src/include/catalog/pg_amop.h patching file src/include/catalog/pg_amproc.h Hunk #3 FAILED at 358. 1 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/include/catalog/