Re: Avoiding possible future conformance headaches in JSON work

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: Avoiding possible future conformance headaches in JSON work
Date: 2019-06-18 15:49:07
Message-ID: 20190618154907.GA6049@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shawn Debnath 2019-06-18 16:13:19 Re: fix "Success" error messages
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-06-18 14:35:30 Re: PG 12 beta 1 segfault during analyze