Re: remaining sql/json patches
От | Amit Langote |
---|---|
Тема | Re: remaining sql/json patches |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+HiwqFUpwwGhy4-w70dHxfmrxefvzniUcJAm-7sv76J+Ezu-g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: remaining sql/json patches (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: remaining sql/json patches
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 23:14 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-Mar-07, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I was experimenting with the v42 patches, and I think the handling of ON
> EMPTY / ON ERROR clauses may need some improvement.
Well, the 2023 standard says things like
<JSON value function> ::=
JSON_VALUE <left paren>
<JSON API common syntax>
[ <JSON returning clause> ]
[ <JSON value empty behavior> ON EMPTY ]
[ <JSON value error behavior> ON ERROR ]
<right paren>
which implies that if you specify it the other way around, it's a syntax
error.
> I'm not sure what the SQL standard says about this, but it seems other
> databases don't agree on the order. Is there a particular reason to
> not allow both orderings?
I vaguely recall that trying to also support the other ordering leads to
having more rules.
Yeah, I think that was it. At one point, I removed rules supporting syntax that wasn’t documented.
Now maybe we do want that because of compatibility
with other DBMSs, but frankly at this stage I wouldn't bother.
+1.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: