Greetings, * Dmitry Dolgov (9erthalion6@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > If we want to change it, the question is where to stop? Essentially we have: > > update table set data = some_func(data, some_args_with_null); > > where some_func happened to be jsonb_set, but could be any strict function. I don't think it makes any sense to try and extrapolate this out to other strict functions. Functions should be strict when it makes sense for them to be- in this case, it sounds like it doesn't really make sense for jsonb_set to be strict, and that's where we stop it. > I wonder if in this case it makes sense to think about an alternative? For > example, there is generic type subscripting patch, that allows to update a > jsonb in the following way: > > update table set jsonb_data[key] = 'value'; > > It doesn't look like a function, so it's not a big deal if it will handle NULL > values differently. And at the same time one can argue, that people, who are > not aware about this caveat with jsonb_set and NULL values, will most likely > use it due to a bit simpler syntax (more similar to some popular programming > languages). This seems like an entirely independent thing ... Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
