Re: SQL/JSON path issues/questions

From: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Liudmila Mantrova <l(dot)mantrova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SQL/JSON path issues/questions
Date: 2019-07-03 20:59:01
Message-ID: CAPpHfdtzB3ufCxQ_ec3fVN3G_xjmh_P9-wfgxhG_KEQcpQkCkw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi!

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:27 PM Liudmila Mantrova
<l(dot)mantrova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>
> I have rechecked the standard and I agree that we should use "filter
> expression" whenever possible.
> "A filter expression must be enclosed in parentheses..." looks like an
> oversight, so I fixed it. As for what's actually enclosed, I believe we
> can still use the word "condition" here as it's easy to understand and
> is already used in our docs, e.g. in description of the WHERE clause
> that serves a similar purpose.
> The new version of the patch fixes the terminology, tweaks the examples,
> and provides some grammar and style fixes in the jsonpath-related chapters.

It looks good to me. But this sentence looks a bit too complicated.

"It can be followed by one or more accessor operators to define the
JSON element on a lower nesting level by which to filter the result."

Could we phrase this as following?

"In order to filter the result by values lying on lower nesting level,
@ operator can be followed by one or more accessor operators."

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message James Coleman 2019-07-03 21:02:44 Re: Index Skip Scan
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-07-03 20:48:12 Re: Custom Scan coverage.