Re: SQL JSON path enhanced numeric literals - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nikita Malakhov
Subject Re: SQL JSON path enhanced numeric literals
Date
Msg-id CAN-LCVOXjxwbYPqOPa-MiKq10jnwiT3=YL8QtsS+PVk7kfMZ0Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SQL JSON path enhanced numeric literals  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: SQL JSON path enhanced numeric literals
List pgsql-hackers
Hi!

Sorry to bother, but there is a question on JsonPath - how many bits in the JsonPath
header could be used for the version? The JsonPath header is 4 bytes, and currently
the Version part is defined as
#define JSONPATH_VERSION (0x01)

Thanks!

On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 6:55 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
On 03.03.23 21:16, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> I think this new feature ought to be mentioned in the docs somewhere.
> Perhaps a sentence or two in the note below table 9.49 would suffice,
> since it looks like that's where jsonpath numbers are mentioned for
> the first time.

Done.  I actually put it into the data types chapter, where some other
differences between SQL and SQL/JSON syntax were already discussed.

> In jsonpath_scan.l, I think the hex/oct/bininteger cases could do with
> a comment, such as
>
> /* Non-decimal integers in ECMAScript; must not have underscore after radix */
> hexinteger    0[xX]{hexdigit}(_?{hexdigit})*
> octinteger    0[oO]{octdigit}(_?{octdigit})*
> bininteger    0[bB]{bindigit}(_?{bindigit})*
>
> since that's different from the main lexer's syntax.

done

> Perhaps it's worth mentioning that difference in the docs.

done

> Otherwise, this looks good to me.

committed





--
Regards,
Nikita Malakhov
Postgres Professional
The Russian Postgres Company

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Melanie Plageman
Date:
Subject: Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often
Next
From: Zhang Mingli
Date:
Subject: SELECT INTO without columns or star