| From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Jsonpath ** vs lax mode |
| Date: | 2021-01-25 15:33:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdvfW__VPWTvm-15uyBodVnPXFjceQ7+EnwvHz+3PtxCiw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 4:35 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> On 2021-Jan-21, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> > Requiring strict mode for ** is a solution, but probably too restrictive...
> >
> > What do you think about making just subsequent accessor after ** not
> > to unwrap arrays. That would be a bit tricky to implement, but
> > probably that would better satisfy the user needs.
>
> Hmm, why is it too restrictive? If the user needs to further drill into
> the JSON, can't they chain json_path_query calls, specifying (or
> defaulting to) lax mode for the part doesn't include the ** expression?
For sure, there are some walkarounds. But I don't think all the
lax-mode queries involving ** are affected. So, it might happen that
we force users to use strict-mode or chain call even if it's not
necessary. I'm tending to just fix the doc and wait if there are mode
complaints :)
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-01-25 15:38:40 | Re: mkid reference |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2021-01-25 15:31:01 | Re: Jsonpath ** vs lax mode |