| From: | Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Ajay Pal <ajay(dot)pal(dot)k(at)gmail(dot)com>, Imran Zaheer <imran(dot)zhir(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ) |
| Date: | 2025-11-26 03:02:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAEG8a3JksCdJuzkJ+gLh1Qi=jd2zRgsc3+AQ4aw64-C-87Jhsg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 9:58 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 20.11.25 16:00, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> >> 5.
> >>
> >> src/backend/catalog/sql_features.txt
> >>
> >> +G034 Path concatenation YES SQL/PGQ required
> >>
> >> Do we support path concatenation?
> > I don't think so. But let Peter confirm it.
>
> AFAICT, path concatenation just allows that you can write multiple
> element patterns in a row, like ()-[]->(). I don't see how it could
> make sense to not support that.
Yeah, I just took a look at the SQL/PGQ standard
<path concatenation> ::=
<path term> <path factor>
Now I understand, thanks.
--
Regards
Junwang Zhao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2025-11-26 03:24:12 | RE: How can end users know the cause of LR slot sync delays? |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-11-26 02:59:35 | Re: How can end users know the cause of LR slot sync delays? |