Re: SQL/JSON path issues/questions
От | Alexander Korotkov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SQL/JSON path issues/questions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAPpHfdtzB3ufCxQ_ec3fVN3G_xjmh_P9-wfgxhG_KEQcpQkCkw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SQL/JSON path issues/questions (Liudmila Mantrova <l.mantrova@postgrespro.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: SQL/JSON path issues/questions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi! On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:27 PM Liudmila Mantrova <l.mantrova@postgrespro.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: