Re: Jsonpath ** vs lax mode
От | Alexander Korotkov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Jsonpath ** vs lax mode |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAPpHfdux0HdL5iVBiUoKaDdgDhaRa1k8t4=_U43EDbE8KOUXJg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Jsonpath ** vs lax mode (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Jsonpath ** vs lax mode
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 6:33 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 4:35 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.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 :) The patch, which clarifies this situation in the docs is attached. I'm going to push it if no objections. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: