Re: jsonb and nested hstore

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
> On 01/26/2014 05:42 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Here is the latest set of patches for nested hstore and jsonb.
>>
>> Because it's so large I've broken this into two patches and compressed
>> them. The jsonb patch should work standalone. The nested hstore patch
>> depends on it.
>>
>> All the jsonb functions now use the jsonb API - there is no more turning
>> jsonb into text and reparsing it.
>>
>> At this stage I'm going to be starting cleanup on the jsonb code
>> (indentation, error messages, comments etc.) as well get getting up some
>> jsonb docs.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Here is an update of the jsonb part of this. Charges:
>
> * there is now documentation for jsonb
> * most uses of elog() in json_funcs.c are replaced by ereport().
> * indentation fixes and other tidying.
>
> No changes in functionality.

Don't have time to fire it up this morning, but a quick scan of the
patch turned up a few minor things:

* see a comment typo, line 290 'jsonn':
* line 332: 'bogus input' -- is this up to error reporting standards?
How about "value 'x' must be one of array, object, numeric, string,
bool"?
* line 357: "jsonb's key could be only a string" prefer non
possessive: jsonb keys must be a string
* line 374, 389: ditto 332
* line 513: is panic appropriate here?
* line 599: ditto
* line 730: odd phrasing in comment, also commenting on this function
is a little light
* line 807: slightly prefer 'with respect to'
* line 888: another PANIC: these maybe correct, seems odd to halt
server on corrupted datum though*
* line 1150: hm, is the jsonb internal hash structure documented?
Aside: why didn't we use standard hash table (performance maybe)?
* line 1805-6: poor phrasing. How about: "it will order and make
unique the hash keys. Otherwise we believe that pushed keys are
ordered and unique. (Don't like verbed 'unqiue').
* line 1860: "no break here: "

merlin