Re: jsonpath: Missing Binary Execution Path?
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: jsonpath: Missing Binary Execution Path? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwb=7QnUftHWrqrtzQzPbUgiw9pq19q0Qynb04=cUZUZxA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: jsonpath: Missing Binary Execution Path? (Chapman Flack <jcflack@acm.org>) |
| Ответы |
Re: jsonpath: Missing Binary Execution Path?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday, June 13, 2024, Chapman Flack <jcflack@acm.org> wrote:
On 06/13/24 21:24, David G. Johnston wrote:
> I'm content that the operators in the 'filter operators' table need to be
> within filter but then I cannot reconcile why this example worked:
>
> david=# select jsonb_path_query('1', '$ >= 1');
Good point. I can't either. No way I can see to parse that as
a <JSON path wff>.
Whether we note it as non-standard or not is an open question then, but it does work and opens up a documentation question. It seems like it needs to appear in table T9.50. Whether it also should appear in T9.51 is the question. It seems like anything in T9.50 is allowed in a filter while the stuff in T9.51 should be limited to those things only allowed in a filter. Which suggests moving it from T9.51 to T9.50
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: