Re: Patch: Improve Boolean Predicate JSON Path Docs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>
Cc: Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch: Improve Boolean Predicate JSON Path Docs
Date: 2024-01-25 16:03:24
Message-ID: 365431.1706198604@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> writes:
> On Jan 24, 2024, at 16:32, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> + <para>
>> + Predicate check expressions are required in the
>> + <literal>@@</literal> operator (and the
>> + <function>jsonb_path_match</function> function), and should not be used
>> + with the <literal>@?</literal> operator (or the
>> + <function>jsonb_path_exists</function> function).
>> + </para>
>> + </note>
>> + </sect4>

> I had this bit here:

> <para>
> Conversely, non-predicate <type>jsonpath</type> expressions should not be
> used with the <literal>@@</literal> operator (or the
> <function>jsonb_path_match</function> function).
> </para>

I changed the preceding para to say "... check expressions are
required in ...", which I thought was sufficient to cover that.
Also, the tabular description of the operator tells you not to do it.

> What do you think of also dropping the article from all the references to “the strict mode” or “the lax mode”, to make them “strict mode” and “lax mode”, respectively?

Certainly most of 'em don't need it. I'll make it so.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2024-01-25 16:04:43 Re: make dist using git archive
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-01-25 15:48:25 Re: A compiling warning in jsonb_populate_record_valid