|From:||Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|To:||Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Piotr Stefaniak <email(at)piotr-stefaniak(dot)me>, "obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com" <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>|
|Subject:||Re: SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On 03.11.2017 15:07, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>> By standard only string literals can be used in JSON path specifications.
>> But of course it is possible to allow to use variable jsonpath expressions
>> SQL/JSON functions.
>> Attached patch implements this feature for JSON query functions, JSON_TABLE
>> not supported now because it needs some refactoring.
>> I have pushed this commit to the separate branch because it is not finished
> The patch sent previously does not directly apply on HEAD, and as far
> as I can see the last patch set published on
> has rotten. Could you send a new patch set?
Attached patch set rebased onto current master.
Branches in our github repository also updated.
> About the patch set, I had a look at the first patch which is not that
> heavy, however it provides zero documentation, close to zero comments,
> but adds more than 500 lines of code. I find that a bit hard to give
> an opinion on, having commit messages associated to each patch would
> be also nice. This way, reviewers can figure what's going out in this
> mess and provide feedback.
Sorry that comments and commit messages are still absent. I am going to
in the next version of these patches where SQL/JSON constructors displaying
will be fixed.
> Making things incremental is welcome as
> well, for example in the first patch I have a hard way finding out why
> timestamps are touched to begin with.
Timestamp's code was touched to add support of two features needed for
.datetime() item method by standard:
- TZH and TZM template patterns
- datetime components recognition
I absolutely agree that this should be in a separate patch.
> The patch is already marked as "waiting on author" for more than one month.
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
|Next Message||Paul Ramsey||2017-11-03 22:56:24||Re: Parallel Plans and Cost of non-filter functions|
|Previous Message||Alexander Korotkov||2017-11-03 22:12:43||Re: How to implement a SP-GiST index as a extension module?|