Re: [PATCH] Cover get_json_table_plan() with tests

From: "Jonathan Gonzalez V(dot)" <jonathan(dot)abdiel(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)tigerdata(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, solai v <solai(dot)cdac(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cover get_json_table_plan() with tests
Date: 2026-07-21 13:21:19
Message-ID: 874ihsh41c.fsf@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Hello!~

Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)tigerdata(dot)com> writes:

> Hi,
>
>> The patch needs a rebase after today's commits. I will figure it out
>> and submit the updated version.
>
> Rebased.
>
>> I also tried running the same JSON_TABLE ... PLAN (...) query manually
>> in psql and got the same syntax error.
>
> Works for me. Make sure you are using the latest version of the `master` branch.

I checked on the coverage that this patch effectively improves, but
reviewing the report I notice that there's still some gap that can be
fixed by just adding another nested path like this:

NESTED PATH '$[*]' AS p1 COLUMNS (NESTED PATH '$[*]' AS p10 COLUMNS (a int))
NESTED PATH '$[*]' AS p2 COLUMNS (NESTED PATH '$[*]' AS p20 COLUMNS (b int))

This will still leave space for another for these lines

IsA(j->rplan, JsonTableSiblingJoin)
and
IsA(j->lplan, JsonTableSiblingJoin)

Probably requires adding another query to the tests? Since the objective
is to increase the test coverage, it may worthy to add another query
that helps to get closer to the 100% coverage of that function.

Regards,
--
Jonathan Gonzalez V.
EDB
https://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Antonin Houska 2026-07-21 13:28:22 Re: Unexpected behavior after OOM errors
Previous Message Christoph Berg 2026-07-21 13:09:41 Re: Available disk space per tablespace