| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chapman Flack <jcflack(at)acm(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "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 14:39:36 |
| Message-ID: | A91C6D1C-895C-460D-87FB-8DAF4A4CB116@justatheory.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jun 13, 2024, at 21:55, Chapman Flack <jcflack(at)acm(dot)org> wrote:
> 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().
Thank you! Cited that bit in the commit message in the attached patch (also available as a GitHub PR[1]).
D
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1-0001-Teach-jsonpath-string-to-unwrap-in-lax-mode.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-06-14 14:39:41 | Re: may be a buffer overflow problem |
| Previous Message | Nazir Bilal Yavuz | 2024-06-14 14:36:54 | Re: CI and test improvements |