On 23.12.22 10:04, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 19.12.22 23:48, David Rowley wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 at 11:42, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I think Peter is entirely right to question whether *this* type's
>>> output function is performance-critical. Who's got large tables with
>>> jsonpath columns? It seems to me the type would mostly only exist
>>> as constants within queries.
>>
>> The patch touches code in the path of jsonb's output function too. I
>> don't think you could claim the same for that.
>
> Ok, let's leave the jsonb output alone. The jsonb output code also
> won't change a lot, but there is a bunch of stuff for jsonpath on the
> horizon, so having some more robust coding style to imitate there seems
> useful. Here is another patch set with the jsonb changes omitted.
I have committed these.