Re: Forthcoming SQL standards about JSON and Multi-Dimensional Arrays (FYI) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: Forthcoming SQL standards about JSON and Multi-Dimensional Arrays (FYI)
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRDR2LuUUU17_DxbCkiFSD9wbkaPtfHsjqt=DonMBN66tg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Forthcoming SQL standards about JSON and Multi-Dimensional Arrays (FYI)  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Forthcoming SQL standards about JSON and Multi-Dimensional Arrays (FYI)  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi

2016-07-01 20:46 GMT+02:00 Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>:
On 7/1/16 7:06 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
Yeah, but since when has the SQL standard adopted any existing
implementation's spelling of a feature? It seems to be politically
impossible.

The SQL/JSON thing is pretty much straight from Oracle and Microsoft (and notably completely different from DB2).

I checked standard, and it looks like not a significant problem to implement it in Postgres. The implementation should be similar to XML - requires parser support. We doesn't use a identifier of important SQL/JSON functions: JSON_EXISTS, JSON_VALUE, JSON_QUERY, JSON_TABLE, JSON_ARRAY. The problem should be with function JSON_OBJECT - standard is based on variadic function of pairs (name, value), but it should be solvable, because our first argument is a array, what is not possible in standard. So ANSI SQL conform implementation of JSON support is still possible in Postgres.

Regards

Pavel



 

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


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in batch tuplesort memory CLUSTER case (9.6 only)
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in batch tuplesort memory CLUSTER case (9.6 only)