Re: [HACKERS] SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL

2018-01-02 21:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:

>
>
> On 01/02/2018 02:44 PM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> >> I am looking on this patch set and it looks very well.
> >>
> >> Personally I dislike any extensions against SQL/JSON in this patch. And
> >> there is lot of extensions there. It doesn't mean so these extensions
> are
> >> bad, but it should be passed as next step and there should be separate
> >> discussion related to these extensions.
> >>
> >> Please, can you reduce this patch to only SQL/JSON part?
> > +1, our goal is to push the standard to PG 11, which is more or less
> realistic.
> > Nikita will rearrange the patch set, so patches 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10,
> > 11, 12, which
> > implement SQL/JSON could be applied without extra patches.
> >
> > Patches 5,6 are desirable, since we can implement custom operators. This
> is
> > very important for postgres, which is known as extensible database with
> rich set
> > of extensions. Think about geojson with spatial operators or array
> > operators, for
> > example. But I agree, it's subject of separate thread.
> >
> > In very extreme case, we could commit for PG 11 only jsonpath-related
> patches
> > 1,2 and probably 4. I think, that jsonpath is what we really miss in
> postgres.
>
>
> That seems a bit pessimistic. I hope we can do lots better.
>
> It looks to me like patches 1, 7 and 8 can stand alone, and should be
> submitted separately, and we should try to get them committed early.
> These are all small patches - a couple of hundred lines each.
>
> Patches 2, 3, and 4 should come next - I included patch 3 because I
> think GIN indexing is going to be critical to success.
>
> After that 9, 10, 11 and 12.
>
> I don't have a problem with the rest, but they should probably have a
> lower priority. If we can get to them well and good.
>
> We should stop use the word 'extension' when we don't mean what Postgres
> calls an extension (which is only patch 14 in this case). Call it an
> addition or extra feature or something else. Otherwise it gets confusing.
>
> I'm not 100% clear on why we're adding jsonpathx as an extension,
> though. Do we not think most json users will want to use map, reduce etc.?
>

In this moment, there is lot of code, and we should be concentrated to
merging the core of this feature. I am sure, so discussion about extra
features will come, and will be more realistic and less nervous if SQL/JSON
will be merged already.

I looked to patch - and It is big, really big - we should to start with
some important subset that we can understand and test well.

Regards

Pavel

>
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
> --
> Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>
>