Re: Avoiding possible future conformance headaches in JSON work

On 2019-09-20 01:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> writes:
>> Sure, against *every* non-spec feature we have or ever will have, someone
>> /could/ raise a generic "what if SQL committee might add something pretty
>> similar in future".
>> But what we have in this case are specific non-spec features (array, map,
>> and sequence constructors, lambdas, map/fold/reduce, user-defined
>> functions) that are flat-out already present in the current version of
>> the language that the SQL committee is clearly modeling jsonpath on.
>
> Sure. But we also modeled those features on the same language that the
> committee is looking at (or at least I sure hope we did). So it's
> reasonable to assume that they would come out at the same spot without
> any prompting. And we can prompt them ;-).

Also, I understand these are features proposed for PG13, not in PG12.
So while this is an important discussion, it's not relevant to the PG12
release, right?

(If so, I'm content to close these open items.)

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services