Re: SQL/JSON features for v15

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: SQL/JSON features for v15
Date: 2022-08-23 19:54:20
Message-ID: 768041.1661284460@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2022-08-23 13:28:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I agree with the upthread comments that we only need/want to catch
>> foreseeable incorrect-input errors, and that the way to make that
>> happen is to refactor the related type input functions, and that
>> a lot of the heavy lifting for that has been done already.

> I think it's a good direction to go in. What of the heavy lifting for that has
> been done already? I'd have guessed that the hard part is to add different,
> optional, type input, type coercion signatures, and then converting a lot of
> types to that?

I was assuming that we would only bother to do this for a few core types.
Of those, at least the datetime types were already done for previous
JSON-related features. If we want extensibility, then as Robert said
there's going to have to be work done to create a common API that type
input functions can implement, which seems like a pretty heavy lift.
We could get it done for v16 if we start now, I imagine.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2022-08-23 19:57:37 Re: SQL/JSON features for v15
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2022-08-23 19:45:01 Re: SQL/JSON features for v15