Re: [PATCH] Fix JSON_SERIALIZE() coercion placeholder type for jsonb input

Hi Nikhil,

Thanks - I've attached v2 with the revised test cases; there are no
functional changes from v1.

Cheers,

Matt

On Wed, Aug 26, 2026 at 9:07 AM Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>
> I reviewed the patch and tested it against current master.
>
> I built the patch with assertions enabled and ran the full core regression
> suite. All 245 tests passed. I also tested:
>
> - typed jsonb parameters in prepared statements
> - default text, varchar, bytea, and string-domain results
> - NULL jsonb input
> - use inside a view and subsequent deparsing
>
> These all behaved as expected. I did not find any security, WAL/recovery,
> logical-replication, or performance concerns introduced by the patch.
>
> I have one comment:
>
> Regression tests
> To me, some of the additional coverage seems redundant:
>
> - The RETURNING int and RETURNING jsonb cases are rejected before
> reaching the changed code.
> - The RETURNING jsonb error is already tested immediately above with a
> non-jsonb input.
> - The new EXPLAIN cases verify deparsing but do not reveal which
> coercion function was selected.
>
> So, I think the test addition could be reduced to one default text case
> and one RETURNING bytea case.
>
> Otherwise, the implementation looks correct. It's simpler than converting
> every jsonb input to json every time.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nikhil
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 12:18 AM Matt Blewitt <mble(at)planetscale(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Zsolt,
>>
>> Thanks for testing that out and confirming it looks good against master.
>> Submitted to commitfest for further review and integration consideration.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 11:20 PM Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> This is a simple fix and it does what it says, it looks good to me.
>>>
>>> I did test it with a few more queries and compared it against master,
>>> all looks good.
>>>
>>