From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SQL/JSON json_table plan clause |
Date: | 2025-02-04 03:05:07 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqGqz1+jvrWHHzYSnzuVZPp4v-vfEyX-hB=3hTP3Asf78Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Nikita,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 12:11 AM Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi hackers!
>
> This thread is further work continued in [1], where Amit Langote
> suggested starting discussion on the remaining SQL/JSON feature
> 'PLAN clause for JSON_TABLE' anew.
>
> We'd like to help with merging SQL/JSON patches into vanilla,
> and have adapted PLAN clause to recent changes in JSON_TABLE
> function.
Thanks for working on this.
> While doing this we've found that some tests with the PLAN clause
> were incorrect, along with JSON_TABLE behavior with this clause.
> We've corrected this behavior, but these corrections required reverting
> some removed and heavily refactored code, so we'd be glad for review
> and feedback on this patch.
Sorry, I don't fully understand this paragraph. Do you mean that
there might be bugs in the existing JSON_TABLE() functionality that
was committed into v17?
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2025-02-04 03:06:32 | Re: Avoid updating inactive_since for invalid replication slots |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-02-04 02:09:30 | Re: Eagerly scan all-visible pages to amortize aggressive vacuum |