Re: Avoiding possible future conformance headaches in JSON work

On 2019-Jun-01, Chapman Flack wrote:

> In either case, perhaps we should immediately add a way to identify a
> jsonpath as being PostgreSQL-extended. Maybe a keyword 'pg' that can
> be accepted at the start in addition to any lax/strict, so you could
> have 'pg lax $.map(x => x + 10)'.
>
> If we initially /require/ 'pg' for the extensions to be recognized, then
> we can relax the requirement for whichever ones later appear in the spec
> using the same syntax. If they appear in the spec with a different
> syntax, then by requiring 'pg' already for our variant, we already have
> avoided the standard_conforming_strings kind of multi-release
> reconciliation effort.

I agree we should do this (or something similar) now, to avoid future
pain. It seems a similar problem to E'' strings vs. SQL-standard
''-ones, which was a painful transition. We have an opportunity to do
better this time.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services