Re: More new SQL/JSON item methods - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: More new SQL/JSON item methods
Date
Msg-id cc883de1-ae89-438b-a97e-926ad332f5ba@eisentraut.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: More new SQL/JSON item methods  (Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: More new SQL/JSON item methods
List pgsql-hackers
Attached are two small fixup patches for your patch set.

In the first one, I simplified the grammar for the .decimal() method. 
It seemed a bit overkill to build a whole list structure when all we 
need are 0, 1, or 2 arguments.

Per SQL standard, the precision and scale arguments are unsigned 
integers, so unary plus and minus signs are not supported.  So my patch 
removes that support, but I didn't adjust the regression tests for that.

Also note that in your 0002 patch, the datetime precision is similarly 
unsigned, so that's consistent.

By the way, in your 0002 patch, don't see the need for the separate 
datetime_method grammar rule.  You can fold that into accessor_op.

Overall, I think it would be better if you combined all three of these 
patches into one.  Right now, you have arranged these as incremental 
features, and as a result of that, the additions to the JsonPathItemType 
enum and the grammar keywords etc. are ordered in the way you worked on 
these features, I guess.  It would be good to maintain a bit of sanity 
to put all of this together and order all the enums and everything else 
for example in the order they are in the sql_features.txt file (which is 
alphabetical, I suppose).  At this point I suspect we'll end up 
committing this whole feature set together anyway, so we might as well 
organize it that way.

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Oom on temp (un-analyzed table caused by JIT) V16.1
Next
From: Konstantin Knizhnik
Date:
Subject: Re: Custom explain options