From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: json_query conditional wrapper bug |
Date: | 2024-09-12 02:24:52 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqFoSbbBDxGDOanv+h1_fvLRim7p0vy0Ft3MfQrh0pZs9w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 8:56 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
> On 11.09.24 13:25, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 6:57 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
> >> On 11.09.24 09:51, Amit Langote wrote:
> >>>>> I've updated your patch to include updated test outputs and a nearby
> >>>>> code comment expanded. Do you intend to commit it or do you prefer
> >>>>> that I do?
> >>>>
> >>>> This change looks unrelated:
> >>>>
> >>>> -ERROR: new row for relation "test_jsonb_constraints" violates check
> >>>> constraint "test_jsonb_constraint4"
> >>>> +ERROR: new row for relation "test_jsonb_constraints" violates check
> >>>> constraint "test_jsonb_constraint5"
> >>>>
> >>>> Is this some randomness in the way these constraints are evaluated?
> >>>
> >>> The result of JSON_QUERY() in the CHECK constraint changes, so the
> >>> constraint that previously failed now succeeds after this change,
> >>> because the comparison looked like this before and after:
> >>>
> >>> -- before
> >>> postgres=# select jsonb '[10]' < jsonb '[10]';
> >>> ?column?
> >>> ----------
> >>> f
> >>> (1 row)
> >>>
> >>> -- after
> >>> postgres=# select jsonb '10' < jsonb '[10]';
> >>> ?column?
> >>> ----------
> >>> t
> >>> (1 row)
> >>>
> >>> That causes the next constraint to be evaluated and its failure
> >>> reported instead.
> >>>
> >>> In the attached, I've adjusted the constraint for the test case to be
> >>> a bit more relevant and removed a nearby somewhat redundant test,
> >>> mainly because its output changes after the adjustment.
> >>
> >> Ok, that looks good. Good that we could clear that up a bit.
> >
> > Thanks for checking. Would you like me to commit it?
>
> Please do.
Done. Thanks for the report and the patch.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2024-09-12 02:25:38 | Re: Remove shadowed declaration warnings |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-09-12 02:19:00 | Re: Pgstattuple on Sequences: Seeking Community Feedback on Potential Patch |