Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL

On 03.01.2018 00:38, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Andrew Dunstan
> <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On 01/02/2018 02:44 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> I am looking on this patch set and it looks very well.
>>>>
>>>> Personally I dislike any extensions against SQL/JSON in this patch. And
>>>> there is lot of extensions there. It doesn't mean so these extensions are
>>>> bad, but it should be passed as next step and there should be separate
>>>> discussion related to these extensions.
>>>>
>>>> Please, can you reduce this patch to only SQL/JSON part?
>>> +1, our goal is to push the standard to PG 11, which is more or less realistic.
>>> Nikita will rearrange the patch set, so patches 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10,
>>> 11, 12, which
>>> implement SQL/JSON could be applied without extra patches.
>>>
>>> Patches 5,6 are desirable, since we can implement custom operators. This is
>>> very important for postgres, which is known as extensible database with rich set
>>> of extensions. Think about geojson with spatial operators or array
>>> operators, for
>>> example. But I agree, it's subject of separate thread.
>>>
>>> In very extreme case, we could commit for PG 11 only jsonpath-related patches
>>> 1,2 and probably 4. I think, that jsonpath is what we really miss in postgres.
>>
>> That seems a bit pessimistic. I hope we can do lots better.
> Would love too !
>
>> It looks to me like patches 1, 7 and 8 can stand alone, and should be
>> submitted separately, and we should try to get them committed early.
>> These are all small patches - a couple of hundred lines each.
> +1
>
>> Patches 2, 3, and 4 should come next - I included patch 3 because I
>> think GIN indexing is going to be critical to success.
> agree, we can consider patch 4 later
>
>> After that 9, 10, 11 and 12.
>
> again, 10 , 12 may be considered later
>
>> I don't have a problem with the rest, but they should probably have a
>> lower priority. If we can get to them well and good.
>>
>> We should stop use the word 'extension' when we don't mean what Postgres
>> calls an extension (which is only patch 14 in this case). Call it an
>> addition or extra feature or something else. Otherwise it gets confusing.
> +1, lets call 'extra'
>
>> I'm not 100% clear on why we're adding jsonpathx as an extension,
>> though. Do we not think most json users will want to use map, reduce etc.?
> We decided to do that, since the whole patch set is already big.
>
>>
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> andrew
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
>> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>>

I have removed all extra features from the patch set, they can be found
in our
github repository: https://github.com/postgrespro/sqljson/tree/sqljson_ext.

Now there are 10 patches which have the following dependencies:

1:
2: 1
3: 2
4: 2
5:
6:
7: 2, 5, 6
8: 7, 4
9: 7
10: 8, 9

--
Nikita Glukhov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company