Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

2014-03-23 Thread Oleg Bartunov
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 p...@heroku.com wrote:
 On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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 alternative called jsonb_hash_ops that
 only supports containment, and performs considerably better than the
 default. Containment *is* the compelling operator to support, though -
 you can do rather a lot with it. This must be what you're referring
 to, since I recall you blogged about the response it got at pgConf.EU.
 Both are available.


 --
 Peter Geoghegan


 --
 Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
 To make changes to your subscription:
 http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

2014-03-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
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 scalar.
 
 
 On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
  On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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 alternative called jsonb_hash_ops that
  only supports containment, and performs considerably better than the
  default. Containment *is* the compelling operator to support, though -
  you can do rather a lot with it. This must be what you're referring
  to, since I recall you blogged about the response it got at pgConf.EU.
  Both are available.

My question was about whether we decided to abandon the GiST support
entirely as there is no method for indexing long values:


http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZSbsedz_YwsQm-chT6B6KX0rh-vke=5nb2gblsem0e...@mail.gmail.com

In reading your reply, I now understand that GIN supports hash and
non-hash indexing types, which is great!

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

2014-03-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
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 documentation has been significantly expanded to discuss
 containment further, since it's a significant part of the feature.
 This could probably use some polishing and general scrutiny, which is
 something that Andrew may consider. I didn't have time to go over it
 to the extent that I'd prefer.
 
 * I altered containment semantics slightly. Now, it is not possible
 for a raw scalar to contain a single-element array of the same
 scalar, while the inverse is still possible (raw scalars still contain
 themselves too). This made sense to me, and is consistent with the
 behavior of the B-Tree operator class, where a raw scalar is not equal
 to a single-element array of the same scalar. Rather, array is greater
 than the scalar on the basis of its type alone, as at every other
 nesting level. The fact that an array can contain a raw scalar is
 explicitly presented as an exception to the general principle that
 containment needs to be at the same nesting level.
 
 I'm not going to go into the details of the bugs fixed, since no one
 reported them here, and since they're trivial in nature. For full
 details, you can review the log of our publicly accessible feature
 branch.

What did you decide about hashing values in indexes vs. putting them in
literally?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

2014-03-22 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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 alternative called jsonb_hash_ops that
only supports containment, and performs considerably better than the
default. Containment *is* the compelling operator to support, though -
you can do rather a lot with it. This must be what you're referring
to, since I recall you blogged about the response it got at pgConf.EU.
Both are available.


-- 
Peter Geoghegan


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

2014-03-19 Thread Andres Freund
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
 https://github.com/feodor/postgres/tree/jsonb_and_hstore

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

The most imortant things are:

* 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.
* The whole datastructure doesn't have any sensible highlevel
  documentation.
* I don't really like the JsonbSuperHeader name/abstraction. What does
  the Super mean? The only interpetation I see is that it's the
  toplevel header (why not Top then?), but JEntry has the comment: /*
  May be accessed as superheader */...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- 
 Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training  Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

2014-03-19 Thread Josh Berkus
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 Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

2014-03-19 Thread Andres Freund
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 kind of docs we're missing here?

Ah, sorry, that was easy to misunderstand. I was talking about the
on-disk datastructure on the code level, not the user/SQL exposed
part. I've added more verbose FIXMEs to the relevant places where I
think such documentation should be added.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- 
 Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training  Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

2014-03-19 Thread Andrew Dunstan


On 03/19/2014 03:58 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com 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 probably emphasize the distinction.



Perhaps Oleg and Teodor might like to chime in on this.




* The whole datastructure doesn't have any sensible highlevel
   documentation.



And this.


cheers

andrew



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

2014-03-19 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com 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 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 probably emphasize the distinction.

 * The whole datastructure doesn't have any sensible highlevel
   documentation.

I should probably go make some ascii art, per your comment.

 * I don't really like the JsonbSuperHeader name/abstraction. What does
   the Super mean? The only interpetation I see is that it's the
   toplevel header (why not Top then?), but JEntry has the comment: /*
   May be accessed as superheader */...

What it means is that you can pass a pointer to just past the varlena
Jsonb pointer in some contexts (a VARDATA() pointer), and a pointer
into a jbvBinary buffer in others.  The only reason that functions
like findJsonbValueFromSuperHeader() take a super header rather than a
Jsonb pointer is that if they did take a Jsonb*, you'd be making a
representation that the varlena header wasn't garbage, which could not
be ensured in all circumstances, as when the would-be varlena bytes
are something else entirely, or perhaps are even at an address that is
undefined to access. Sites with jbvBinary pointers (e.g. the iterator
code) would have to worry about faking varlena. That comment is
misleading, and the general idea does need to be explained better.

What you propose for jsonb_typeof() looks incorrect to me. Both of
those JsonbIteratorNext() calls are required, to get past the
container pseudo array to get to the underlying single scalar element.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

2014-03-19 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com 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
distinction: 
https://github.com/feodor/postgres/commit/5835de0b55bdfc02ee59e2affb6ce25995587dc4

I did not change the name of JsonbValue, because I sincerely could not
think of a better one. The distinction is subtle.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

2014-03-19 Thread Andrew Dunstan


On 03/19/2014 06:57 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com 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
distinction: 
https://github.com/feodor/postgres/commit/5835de0b55bdfc02ee59e2affb6ce25995587dc4

I did not change the name of JsonbValue, because I sincerely could not
think of a better one. The distinction is subtle.



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.


cheers

andrew


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

2014-03-19 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net 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 variable name back, while changing the struct
field as suggested.


-- 
Peter Geoghegan


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

2014-03-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan


On 03/16/2014 04:10 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net 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 hold off on committing this today. It was agreed
that we weren't quite ready, because there were one or two remaining
bugs (since fixed), but also because I felt that it would be useful to
first hear the opinions of more people before proceeding. I think that
we're not that far from having something committed. Obviously I hope
to get this into 9.4, and attach a lot of strategic importance to
having the feature, which is why I made a large effort to help land
it.

Attached patch has a number of notable revisions. Throughout, it has
been possible for anyone to follow our progress here:
https://github.com/feodor/postgres/commits/jsonb_and_hstore

* In general, the file jsonb_support.c (renamed to jsonb_utils.c) is
vastly better commented, and has a much clearer structure. This was
not something I did much with in the previous revision, and so it has
been a definite focus of this one.

* Hashing is refactored to not use CRC32 anymore. I felt this was a
questionable method of hashing, both within jsonb_hash(), as well as
the jsonb_hash_ops GIN operator class.

* Dead code elimination.

* I got around to fixing the memory leaks in B-Tree support function one.

* Andrew added hstore_to_jsonb, hstore_to_jsonb_loose functions and a
cast. One goal of this effort is to preserve a parallel set of
facilities for the json and jsonb types, and that includes
hstore-related features.

* A fix from Alexander for the jsonb_hash_ops @operator issue I
complained about during the last submission was merged.

* There is no longer any GiST opclass. That just leaves B-Tree, hash,
GIN (default) and GIN jsonb_hash_ops opclasses.

My outstanding concerns are:

* Have we got things right with GIN indexing, containment semantics,
etc? See my remarks in the patch, by grepping contain within
jsonb_util.c. Is the GIN text storage serialization format appropriate
and correct?

* General design concerns. By far the largest source of these is the
file jsonb_util.c.

* Is the on-disk format that we propose to tie Postgres to as good as
it could be?





I've been working through all the changes and fixes that Peter and 
others have made, and they look pretty good to me. There are a few 
mostly cosmetic changes I want to make, but nothing that would be worth 
holding up committing this for. I'm fairly keen to get this committed, 
get some buildfarm coverage and get more people playing with it and 
testing it.


Like Peter, I would like to see more comments from people on the GIN 
support, especially.


The one outstanding significant question of substance I have is this: 
given the commit 5 days ago of provision for triConsistent functions for 
GIN opclasses, should be be adding these to the two GIN opclasses we are 
providing, and what should they look like? Again, this isn't an issue 
that I think needs to hold up committing what we have now.


Regarding Peter's last question, if we're not satisfied with the on-disk 
format proposed it would mean throwing the whole effort out and starting 
again. The only thing I have thought of as an alternative would be to 
store the structure and values separately rather than with values inline 
with the structure. That way you could have a hash of values more or 
less, which would eliminate redundancy of storage of things like object 
field names. But such a structure might well involve at least as much 
computational overhead as the current structure. And nobody's been 
saying all along hold on, we can do better than this. So I'm pretty 
inclined to go with what we have.


cheers

andrew






--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

2014-03-17 Thread Oleg Bartunov
Alexander will take a look on TriConsistent function.

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:

 On 03/16/2014 04:10 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net
 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 hold off on committing this today. It was agreed
 that we weren't quite ready, because there were one or two remaining
 bugs (since fixed), but also because I felt that it would be useful to
 first hear the opinions of more people before proceeding. I think that
 we're not that far from having something committed. Obviously I hope
 to get this into 9.4, and attach a lot of strategic importance to
 having the feature, which is why I made a large effort to help land
 it.

 Attached patch has a number of notable revisions. Throughout, it has
 been possible for anyone to follow our progress here:
 https://github.com/feodor/postgres/commits/jsonb_and_hstore

 * In general, the file jsonb_support.c (renamed to jsonb_utils.c) is
 vastly better commented, and has a much clearer structure. This was
 not something I did much with in the previous revision, and so it has
 been a definite focus of this one.

 * Hashing is refactored to not use CRC32 anymore. I felt this was a
 questionable method of hashing, both within jsonb_hash(), as well as
 the jsonb_hash_ops GIN operator class.

 * Dead code elimination.

 * I got around to fixing the memory leaks in B-Tree support function one.

 * Andrew added hstore_to_jsonb, hstore_to_jsonb_loose functions and a
 cast. One goal of this effort is to preserve a parallel set of
 facilities for the json and jsonb types, and that includes
 hstore-related features.

 * A fix from Alexander for the jsonb_hash_ops @operator issue I
 complained about during the last submission was merged.

 * There is no longer any GiST opclass. That just leaves B-Tree, hash,
 GIN (default) and GIN jsonb_hash_ops opclasses.

 My outstanding concerns are:

 * Have we got things right with GIN indexing, containment semantics,
 etc? See my remarks in the patch, by grepping contain within
 jsonb_util.c. Is the GIN text storage serialization format appropriate
 and correct?

 * General design concerns. By far the largest source of these is the
 file jsonb_util.c.

 * Is the on-disk format that we propose to tie Postgres to as good as
 it could be?




 I've been working through all the changes and fixes that Peter and others
 have made, and they look pretty good to me. There are a few mostly cosmetic
 changes I want to make, but nothing that would be worth holding up
 committing this for. I'm fairly keen to get this committed, get some
 buildfarm coverage and get more people playing with it and testing it.

 Like Peter, I would like to see more comments from people on the GIN
 support, especially.

 The one outstanding significant question of substance I have is this: given
 the commit 5 days ago of provision for triConsistent functions for GIN
 opclasses, should be be adding these to the two GIN opclasses we are
 providing, and what should they look like? Again, this isn't an issue that I
 think needs to hold up committing what we have now.

 Regarding Peter's last question, if we're not satisfied with the on-disk
 format proposed it would mean throwing the whole effort out and starting
 again. The only thing I have thought of as an alternative would be to store
 the structure and values separately rather than with values inline with the
 structure. That way you could have a hash of values more or less, which
 would eliminate redundancy of storage of things like object field names. But
 such a structure might well involve at least as much computational overhead
 as the current structure. And nobody's been saying all along hold on, we
 can do better than this. So I'm pretty inclined to go with what we have.


 cheers

 andrew






 --
 Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
 To make changes to your subscription:
 http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] jsonb status

2014-03-16 Thread Erik Rijkers
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/pg_amproc.h.rej
patching file src/include/catalog/pg_cast.h
patching file src/include/catalog/pg_opclass.h
[...]



 cat src/include/catalog/pg_amproc.h.rej
*** src/include/catalog/pg_amproc.h
--- src/include/catalog/pg_amproc.h
*** DATA(insert (   3659   3614 3614 2 3656 ))
*** 358,364 
  DATA(insert ( 3659   3614 3614 3 3657 ));
  DATA(insert ( 3659   3614 3614 4 3658 ));
  DATA(insert ( 3659   3614 3614 5 2700 ));
!

  /* sp-gist */
  DATA(insert ( 3474   3831 3831 1 3469 ));
--- 360,373 
  DATA(insert ( 3659   3614 3614 3 3657 ));
  DATA(insert ( 3659   3614 3614 4 3658 ));
  DATA(insert ( 3659   3614 3614 5 2700 ));
! DATA(insert ( 4036   3802 3802 1 3480 ));
! DATA(insert ( 4036   3802 3802 2 3482 ));
! DATA(insert ( 4036   3802 3802 3 3483 ));
! DATA(insert ( 4036   3802 3802 4 3484 ));
! DATA(insert ( 4037   3802 3802 1 351 ));
! DATA(insert ( 4037   3802 3802 2 3485 ));
! DATA(insert ( 4037   3802 3802 3 3486 ));
! DATA(insert ( 4037   3802 3802 4 3487 ));

  /* sp-gist */
  DATA(insert ( 3474   3831 3831 1 3469 ));





-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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

2014-03-16 Thread Erik Rijkers
On Sun, March 16, 2014 09:50, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
 On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Erik Rijkers e...@xs4all.nl 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 there is still something wrong; now during the actual 
compile (of contrib):
(this is actually the same error I get when pulling straight from the git repo 
(since yesterday somewhere, I think, or
maybe a bit earlier still))

(git repo being:  on https://github.com/feodor/postgres.git, branch 
jsonb_and_hstore)



-- [2014.03.16 12:29:27 jsonb/0] make contrib
hstore_io.c: In function ‘hstore_to_jsonb’:
hstore_io.c:1398:6: error: ‘JsonbValue’ has no member named ‘size’
   key.size = sizeof(JEntry);
  ^
hstore_io.c:1402:6: error: ‘JsonbValue’ has no member named ‘size’
   key.size += key.string.len;
  ^
hstore_io.c:1408:7: error: ‘JsonbValue’ has no member named ‘size’
val.size = sizeof(JEntry);
   ^
hstore_io.c:1413:7: error: ‘JsonbValue’ has no member named ‘size’
val.size = sizeof(JEntry);
   ^
hstore_io.c:1417:7: error: ‘JsonbValue’ has no member named ‘size’
val.size += val.string.len;
   ^
hstore_io.c: In function ‘hstore_to_jsonb_loose’:
hstore_io.c:1450:6: error: ‘JsonbValue’ has no member named ‘size’
   key.size = sizeof(JEntry);
  ^
hstore_io.c:1454:6: error: ‘JsonbValue’ has no member named ‘size’
   key.size += key.string.len;
  ^
hstore_io.c:1458:6: error: ‘JsonbValue’ has no member named ‘size’
   val.size = sizeof(JEntry);
  ^
hstore_io.c:1524:8: error: ‘JsonbValue’ has no member named ‘size’
 val.size += VARSIZE_ANY(val.numeric) +sizeof(JEntry);
^
hstore_io.c:1528:8: error: ‘JsonbValue’ has no member named ‘size’
 val.size = sizeof(JEntry);
^
hstore_io.c:1532:8: error: ‘JsonbValue’ has no member named ‘size’
 val.size += val.string.len;
^
make[1]: *** [hstore_io.o] Error 1
make: *** [all-hstore-recurse] Error 2
-- make returned 2 - abort


thanks,

Erik Rijkers






-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


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

2014-03-16 Thread Erik Rijkers
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 instance can be started but hstore is not available:

create extension hstore;
ERROR:  could not stat file 
/home/aardvark/pg_stuff/pg_installations/pgsql.jsonb/share/extension/hstore--1.3.sql:
 No such
file or directory





-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers