| From: | Chapman Flack <jcflack(at)acm(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shouldn't jsonpath .string() Unwrap? |
| Date: | 2024-06-14 01:55:04 |
| Message-ID: | 666BA2F8.6030707@acm.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/13/24 18:45, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2024, at 3:53 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> Hmm. You might be right. Many of these items have this code, but the string() branch does not:
>> if (unwrap && JsonbType(jb) == jbvArray)
>> return executeItemUnwrapTargetArray(cxt, jsp, jb, found,
>> false);
>
> Exactly, would be pretty easy to add. I can work up a patch this weekend.
My opinion is yes, that should be done. 9.46, umm, General
Rule 11 g ii 6) A) says just "if MODE is lax and <JSON method> is not
type or size, then let BASE be Unwrap(BASE)." No special exemption
there for string(), nor further below at C) XV) for the operation
of string().
Regards,
-Chap
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2024-06-14 01:58:57 | Re: jsonpath: Missing Binary Execution Path? |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-06-14 01:46:15 | Re: jsonpath: Missing Binary Execution Path? |