Re: SQL JSON path enhanced numeric literals
От | Nikita Malakhov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SQL JSON path enhanced numeric literals |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAN-LCVOXjxwbYPqOPa-MiKq10jnwiT3=YL8QtsS+PVk7kfMZ0Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SQL JSON path enhanced numeric literals (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: SQL JSON path enhanced numeric literals
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi!
Sorry to bother, but there is a question on JsonPath - how many bits in the JsonPath
header could be used for the version? The JsonPath header is 4 bytes, and currently
the Version part is defined as
#define JSONPATH_VERSION (0x01)
Thanks!
On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 6:55 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
On 03.03.23 21:16, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> I think this new feature ought to be mentioned in the docs somewhere.
> Perhaps a sentence or two in the note below table 9.49 would suffice,
> since it looks like that's where jsonpath numbers are mentioned for
> the first time.
Done. I actually put it into the data types chapter, where some other
differences between SQL and SQL/JSON syntax were already discussed.
> In jsonpath_scan.l, I think the hex/oct/bininteger cases could do with
> a comment, such as
>
> /* Non-decimal integers in ECMAScript; must not have underscore after radix */
> hexinteger 0[xX]{hexdigit}(_?{hexdigit})*
> octinteger 0[oO]{octdigit}(_?{octdigit})*
> bininteger 0[bB]{bindigit}(_?{bindigit})*
>
> since that's different from the main lexer's syntax.
done
> Perhaps it's worth mentioning that difference in the docs.
done
> Otherwise, this looks good to me.
committed
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: