Re: SQL/JSON revisited

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 3:39 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:27 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 19:01, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > And I've just finished doing that. In the attached updated 0004,
> > > which adds the JsonExpr node, its evaluation code is now broken into
> > > ExprEvalSteps to handle the subsidiary JsonCoercion and JsonBehavior
> > > expression nodes that previously used ExprState for recursive
> > > evaluation. Andres didn't like the latter as previously discussed at
> > > [1].
> > >
> > > I've also attached the patch that Elena has proposed as the patch
> > > 0011. I haven't managed to review it yet, though once I do, I'll
> > > merge it into the main documentation patch 0009. Thanks Elena.
> >
> > The patch does not apply on top of HEAD as in [1], please post a rebased patch:
>
> Thanks for the heads up. Here's a rebased version.

Rebased again over queryjumble overhaul.

I decided to squash what was "[PATCH v3 01/11] Common SQL/JSON
clauses" into "[PATCH v3 02/11] SQL/JSON constructors", because I
noticed "useless productions" warnings against its gram.y additions
when building just 0001.

I also looked at squashing "[PATCH v3 11/11] Proposed reworking of
SQL/JSON documentaion" into "[PATCH v3 09/11] Documentation for
SQL/JSON features", but didn't, again, because I am still not sure
which one of <parameter> and <replaceable> is correct for the SQL/JSON
function constructs. Maybe it's the latter looking at the markup for
some text on [1], such as exists ( path_expression ) → boolean, but
Andrew sounded doubtful about that upthread.

--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/functions-json.html