Обсуждение: SQL JSON compliance
Simon has just pointed out to me that as a result of recent commits, a number of things now should move from the unsupported table to the supported table in features.sgml. In particular, it looks to me like all of these should move: T811 Basic SQL/JSON constructor functions T812 SQL/JSON: JSON_OBJECTAGG T813 SQL/JSON: JSON_ARRAYAGG with ORDER BY T814 Colon in JSON_OBJECT or JSON_OBJECTAGG T821 Basic SQL/JSON query operators T822 SQL/JSON: IS JSON WITH UNIQUE KEYS predicate T823 SQL/JSON: PASSING clause T824 JSON_TABLE: specific PLAN clause T825 SQL/JSON: ON EMPTY and ON ERROR clauses T826 General value expression in ON ERROR or ON EMPTY clauses T827 JSON_TABLE: sibling NESTED COLUMNS clauses T828 JSON_QUERY T829 JSON_QUERY: array wrapper options T830 Enforcing unique keys in SQL/JSON constructor functions T838 JSON_TABLE: PLAN DEFAULT clause If there's no objection I'll make it so. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
On 13.04.22 22:43, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Simon has just pointed out to me that as a result of recent commits, a > number of things now should move from the unsupported table to the > supported table in features.sgml. In particular, it looks to me like all > of these should move: This all looks correct to me. Please go ahead. > T811 Basic SQL/JSON constructor functions > T812 SQL/JSON: JSON_OBJECTAGG > T813 SQL/JSON: JSON_ARRAYAGG with ORDER BY > T814 Colon in JSON_OBJECT or JSON_OBJECTAGG > T821 Basic SQL/JSON query operators > T822 SQL/JSON: IS JSON WITH UNIQUE KEYS predicate > T823 SQL/JSON: PASSING clause > T824 JSON_TABLE: specific PLAN clause > T825 SQL/JSON: ON EMPTY and ON ERROR clauses > T826 General value expression in ON ERROR or ON EMPTY clauses > T827 JSON_TABLE: sibling NESTED COLUMNS clauses > T828 JSON_QUERY > T829 JSON_QUERY: array wrapper options > T830 Enforcing unique keys in SQL/JSON constructor functions > T838 JSON_TABLE: PLAN DEFAULT clause
On 2022-04-29 Fr 04:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 13.04.22 22:43, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> Simon has just pointed out to me that as a result of recent commits, a >> number of things now should move from the unsupported table to the >> supported table in features.sgml. In particular, it looks to me like all >> of these should move: > > This all looks correct to me. Please go ahead. Thanks, done. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com