Re: JSONPATH documentation

Privet :D

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:29 PM Alexander Korotkov <
a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:10 PM Steven Pousty <steve(dot)pousty(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c067367_ISO_IEC_TR_19075-6_2017.zip
>
> Yes, this link looks good to me. It's technical report, not standard
> itself. So, it may have some little divergences. But it seems to be
> the best free resource available, assuming standard itself isn't free.
>
> Works for me if we can't find something better

> > I am uncertain why JSONPath is considered part of the datatype any more
> so than string functions are considered part of the character datatype
> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/functions-string.html
>
> Let me clarify my thoughts. SQL-level functions jsonb_path_*() (table
> 9.49) are clearly not part of jsonpath datatype. But jsonpath
> accessors (table 8.25), functions (table 9.44) and operators (table
> 9.45) are used inside jsonpath value. So, technically they are parts
> of jsonpath datatype.
>
>
Yes but the only time I would use those 8.25, 9.44, and 9.45 is to just
create a jsonpath whose main purpose is to query or filter JSONB.
As a continued analogy, I think we rightly do not discuss anything but
creating and considerations when using character fields:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/datatype-character.html

And then we have a separate page that talk about all the ways you can
manipulate and filter character fields.

My feeling is that JSONPath is only included as a way to work with JSONB,
not as requirement of JSONB. Therefore JSONPath documentation belongs with
all the other ways we work with JSONB, not as part of the datatype
definition.
JSONPath is important and complicated enough that it may warrant its own
page, just not in the same page where we define JSON(B)

> P.S. We don't use top posting in mailing lists. Please, use bottom
> posting. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Top-posting
> for details.
>
>
Thanks for the very KIND etiquette correction - I really appreciate you
not flaming me.

Thanks
Steve