| From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Shinoda, Noriyoshi (HPE Services Japan - FSIP)" <noriyoshi(dot)shinoda(at)hpe(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: remaining sql/json patches |
| Date: | 2023-07-28 06:57:14 |
| Message-ID: | CA+HiwqG39p+WxwNq35BECZgZr=ZzgMgcB38FEaR-mfCKWjyoVg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 6:36 PM Shinoda, Noriyoshi (HPE Services Japan
- FSIP) <noriyoshi(dot)shinoda(at)hpe(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Thank you for developing such a great feature. The attached patch formats the documentation like any other function definition:
> - Added right parenthesis to json function calls.
> - Added <returnvalue> to json functions.
> - Added a space to the 'expression' part of the json_scalar function.
> - Added a space to the 'expression' part of the json_serialize function.
Thanks for checking and the patch. Will push shortly.
> It seems that the three functions added this time do not have tuples in the pg_proc catalog. Is it unnecessary?
Yes. These are not functions that get pg_proc entries, but SQL
constructs that *look like* functions, similar to XMLEXISTS(), etc.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2023-07-28 07:09:53 | Re: Row pattern recognition |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2023-07-28 06:42:42 | Re: unrecognized node type while displaying a Path due to dangling pointer |