What's the point of json_extract_path_op etc?

On 06/25/2014 02:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Why do we have essentially duplicate pg_proc entries for json_extract_path
and json_extract_path_op? The latter is undocumented and seems only to be
used as the infrastructure for the #> operator. I see that only the
former is marked variadic, but AFAIK the operator machinery couldn't care
less about that, so it seems to me we could get rid of the
json_extract_path_op entry and point the operator at json_extract_path.

Likewise for json_extract_path_text_op, jsonb_extract_path_op, and
jsonb_extract_path_text_op.

ISTR trying that and running into problems, maybe with opr_sanity checks.

But if you can get rid of them cleanly then by all means do.

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

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:

On 06/25/2014 02:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Why do we have essentially duplicate pg_proc entries for json_extract_path
and json_extract_path_op?
Likewise for json_extract_path_text_op, jsonb_extract_path_op, and
jsonb_extract_path_text_op.

ISTR trying that and running into problems, maybe with opr_sanity checks.

Well, the reason that opr_sanity is complaining is that there's a
violation of our general policy of documenting either the operator or
the underlying function, not both. Using a separate pg_proc entry
like this doesn't mean you didn't violate the policy; you just hid the
violation from opr_sanity.

Do we actually want to document these things as both operators and
functions? If we do, then the right answer is to list them as known
exceptions in the opr_sanity test, not to hide the fact that we're
violating the general documentation policy.

regards, tom lane

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

On 06/26/2014 03:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:

On 06/25/2014 02:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Why do we have essentially duplicate pg_proc entries for json_extract_path
and json_extract_path_op?
Likewise for json_extract_path_text_op, jsonb_extract_path_op, and
jsonb_extract_path_text_op.

ISTR trying that and running into problems, maybe with opr_sanity checks.

Well, the reason that opr_sanity is complaining is that there's a
violation of our general policy of documenting either the operator or
the underlying function, not both. Using a separate pg_proc entry
like this doesn't mean you didn't violate the policy; you just hid the
violation from opr_sanity.

Do we actually want to document these things as both operators and
functions? If we do, then the right answer is to list them as known
exceptions in the opr_sanity test, not to hide the fact that we're
violating the general documentation policy.

It's quite important that we have the variadic functions exposed.

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

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:

On 06/26/2014 03:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

Do we actually want to document these things as both operators and
functions? If we do, then the right answer is to list them as known
exceptions in the opr_sanity test, not to hide the fact that we're
violating the general documentation policy.

It's quite important that we have the variadic functions exposed.

Yeah, I suppose --- and at this point backwards compatibility would
demand it anyway. I'll go fix the regression test.

regards, tom lane

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