| From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Jsonpath ** vs lax mode |
| Date: | 2021-01-21 09:27:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfds5jg1xxJTU9tuseL_nTKpUEHt0ivL65Fn7Sq=LQJC4bA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, Alvaro!
Thank you for your feedback.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:16 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> On 2021-Jan-20, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> > My proposal is to make everything after the ** operator use strict mode
> > (patch attached). I think this shouldn't be backpatched, just applied to
> > the v14. Other suggestions?
>
> I think changing the mode midway through the operation is strange. What
> do you think of requiring for ** that mode is strict? That is, if ** is
> used and the mode is lax, an error is thrown.
Yes, changing mode in midway is a bit strange.
Requiring strict mode for ** is a solution, but probably too restrictive...
What do you think about making just subsequent accessor after ** not
to unwrap arrays. That would be a bit tricky to implement, but
probably that would better satisfy the user needs.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2021-01-21 09:37:58 | Re: Jsonpath ** vs lax mode |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2021-01-21 09:23:36 | Re: Wrong usage of RelationNeedsWAL |