Re: More new SQL/JSON item methods

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: More new SQL/JSON item methods
Date: 2024-01-17 19:33:14
Message-ID: 1d092c02-8249-4e56-8b8e-ae4db95b8fde@eisentraut.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 17.01.24 10:03, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
> I added unary '+' and '-' support as well and thus thought of having
> separate rules altogether rather than folding those in.
>
> Per SQL standard, the precision and scale arguments are unsigned
> integers, so unary plus and minus signs are not supported.  So my patch
> removes that support, but I didn't adjust the regression tests for that.
>
>
> However, PostgreSQL numeric casting does support a negative scale. Here
> is an example:
>
> # select '12345'::numeric(4,-2);
>  numeric
> ---------
>    12300
> (1 row)
>
> And thus thought of supporting those.
> Do we want this JSON item method to behave differently here?

Ok, it would make sense to support this in SQL/JSON as well.

> I will merge them all into one and will try to keep them in the order
> specified in sql_features.txt.
> However, for documentation, it makes more sense to keep them in logical
> order than the alphabetical one. What are your views on this?

The documentation can be in a different order.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2024-01-17 19:52:55 Re: psql JSON output format
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2024-01-17 19:30:48 Re: initdb's -c option behaves wrong way?