Re: SQL/JSON: functions

From: Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Alsup <bluesbreaker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: SQL/JSON: functions
Date: 2020-12-25 20:26:30
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 17.09.2020 08:41, Michael Paquier wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 09:24:11AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I think patches 5 and 6 need to be submitted to the next commitfest,
>> This is far too much scope creep to be snuck in under the current CF item.
>> I'll look at patches 1-4.
> Even with that, the patch set has been waiting on author for the last
> six weeks, so I am marking it as RwF for now. Please feel free to
> resubmit.

Attached 51st version of the patches rebased onto current master.

There were some shift/reduce conflicts in SQL grammar that have appeared
after "expr AS keyword" refactoring in 06a7c3154f. I'm not sure if I resolved
them correctly. JSON TEXT pseudotype, introduced in #0006, caused a lot of
grammar conflicts, so it was replaced with simple explicit pg_catalog.json.

Also new CoercionForm COERCE_SQL_SYNTAX was introduced, and this reminds custom
function formats that I have used in earlier version of the patches for
deparsing of SQL/JSON constructor expressions that were based on raw json[b]
function calls. These custom function formats were replaced in v43 with
dedicated executor nodes for SQL/JSON constructors. So, I'm not sure is it
worth to try to replace back nodes with new COERCE_SQL_SYNTAX.

Nikita Glukhov
Postgres Professional:
The Russian Postgres Company

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Common-SQL-JSON-clauses-v51.patch.gz application/gzip 8.1 KB
0002-SQL-JSON-constructors-v51.patch.gz application/gzip 34.1 KB
0003-IS-JSON-predicate-v51.patch.gz application/gzip 12.0 KB
0004-SQL-JSON-query-functions-v51.patch.gz application/gzip 39.7 KB
0005-SQL-JSON-functions-for-json-type-v51.patch.gz application/gzip 12.6 KB
0006-GUC-sql_json-v51.patch.gz application/gzip 5.0 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikita Glukhov 2020-12-25 20:31:55 Re: SQL/JSON: JSON_TABLE
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2020-12-25 20:12:44 Re: pgsql: Add key management system