You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
> > In my mind, the best way to play with PG data types is to use the native map data type. As we have decided to do it in near future, I think for this PR we can ignore that requirement.
So my intention in this PR is to only allow very limited types (non controversial) in JSON now. And maybe enable more if requested by users in the future. The most urgent requesting this feature only needs map<string>. Do you want to allow more types in this PR? 🤔
IMO yes, because it's a quite simple work regardless of our arguments here. 😄 Otherwise, as long as one field inside the map is unsupported the function won't work (even if users don't care about that field), thus I feel that I would be unwilling to say we support it.
This issue has been open for 60 days with no activity.
If you think it is still relevant today, and needs to be done in the near future, you can comment to update the status, or just manually remove the no-issue-activity label.
You can also confidently close this issue as not planned to keep our backlog clean.
Don't worry if you think the issue is still valuable to continue in the future.
It's searchable and can be reopened when it's time. 😄
IMO yes, because it's a quite simple work regardless of our arguments here. 😄 Otherwise, as long as one field inside the
map
is unsupported the function won't work (even if users don't care about that field), thus I feel that I would be unwilling to say we support it.Originally posted by @fuyufjh in #16948 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: