| From: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: More new SQL/JSON item methods |
| Date: | 2023-09-01 01:41:40 |
| Message-ID: | 00138a30a9c8dec41d21e614e5cab5c5@anastigmatix.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-08-31 20:50, Vik Fearing wrote:
> — An SQL/JSON item is defined recursively as any of the following:
> ...
> • An SQL/JSON array, defined as an ordered list of zero or more
> SQL/JSON items, called the SQL/JSON elements of the SQL/JSON
> array.
> ...
> — An SQL/JSON sequence is an ordered list of zero or more SQL/JSON
> items.
As I was thinking, because "an ordered list of zero or more SQL/JSON
items" is also exactly what an SQL/JSON array is, it seems at least
possible to implement things that are specified to return "SQL/JSON
sequence" by having them return an SQL/JSON array (the kind of thing
that isn't possible for XML(SEQUENCE), because there isn't any other
XML construct that can subsume it).
Still, it seems noteworthy that both terms are used in the spec, rather
than saying the function in question should return a JSON array. Makes
me wonder if there are some other details that make the two distinct.
Regards,
-Chap
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-09-01 02:17:27 | Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-09-01 01:40:12 | Re: should frontend tools use syncfs() ? |