Re: Tackling JsonPath support

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote
>
> > I thought by adding my first implementation to "contrib", we could make
> this functionality available to end-users, even before there was a
> consensus about what PG's "official" JSON-related operators should have for
> syntax and semantics.
> >
>
> this time the commiters dislike the contrib dir. It is hard to push there
> anything :-(. You can try it, but it can be lost time.
>

​Thanks for the warning. I'm okay with my patch adding the "json_path"
function to the core PG code.​

I would still suggest that we hold off on having my first patch implement
an official JSON-related operator such as "JSON_TABLE". I would prefer to
have my "json_path" function available to users even before we know how
"JSON_TABLE", etc. should behave.

​Does that sound reasonable?​