Re: Further issues with jsonb semantics, documentation

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>> But I agree that it's not a great contribution to science, especially since
>> the index will be applied to the list of elements in the somewhat
>> counter-intuitive storage order we use, and we could just raise an error if
>> we try to apply integer delete to an object instead of an array.
>
> Cool. Do you want to write a patch, or should I?
>
> Also, what about negative array subscripting (making the 9.4-era
> "operator jsonb -> integer" operator support that for consistency with
> the new "operator jsonb - integer" operator)? Should I write the
> patch? Will you commit it if I do?

Please let me know if you want me to write these two patches.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan