| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoiding possible future conformance headaches in JSON work |
| Date: | 2019-09-19 23:14:06 |
| Message-ID: | 19567.1568934846@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 ;-).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashwin Agrawal | 2019-09-20 00:14:20 | Re: Syntax highlighting for Postgres spec files |
| Previous Message | Chapman Flack | 2019-09-19 22:57:32 | Re: Avoiding possible future conformance headaches in JSON work |