Hi, Thank you for developing such a great feature. The attached patch formats the documentation like any other function definition: - Added right parenthesis to json function calls. - Added <returnvalue> to json functions. - Added a space to the 'expression' part of the json_scalar function. - Added a space to the 'expression' part of the json_serialize function.
It seems that the three functions added this time do not have tuples in the pg_proc catalog. Is it unnecessary? Regards, Noriyoshi Shinoda -----Original Message----- From: Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 5:10 PM To: Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> Cc: Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net>; Erik Rijkers <e...@xs4all.nl>; PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hack...@postgresql.org>; jian he <jian.universal...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: remaining sql/json patches On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 7:33 PM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 1:02 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > wrote: > > On 2023-Jul-21, Amit Langote wrote: > > > > > I’m thinking of pushing 0001 and 0002 tomorrow barring objections. > > > > 0001 looks reasonable to me. I think you asked whether to squash > > that one with the other bugfix commit for the same code that you > > already pushed to master; I think there's no point in committing as > > separate patches, because the first one won't show up in the > > git_changelog output as a single entity with the one in 16, so it'll > > just be additional noise. > > OK, pushed 0001 to HEAD and b6e1157e7d + 0001 to 16. > > > I've looked at 0002 at various points in time and I think it looks > > generally reasonable. I think your removal of a couple of newlines > > (where originally two appear in sequence) is unwarranted; that the > > name to_json[b]_worker is ugly for exported functions (maybe "datum_to_json" > > would be better, or you may have better ideas); > > Went with datum_to_json[b]. Created a separate refactoring patch for > this, attached as 0001. > > Created another refactoring patch for the hunks related to renaming of > a nonterminal in gram.y, attached as 0002. > > > and that the omission of > > the stock comment in the new stanzas in FigureColnameInternal() is > > strange. > > Yes, fixed. > > > But I don't have anything serious. Do add some ecpg tests ... > > Added. > > > Also, remember to pgindent and bump catversion, if you haven't already. > > Will do. Wasn't sure myself whether the catversion should be bumped, > but I suppose it must be because ruleutils.c has changed. > > Attaching latest patches. Will push 0001, 0002, and 0003 on Monday to > avoid worrying about the buildfarm on a Friday evening. And pushed. Will post the remaining patches after addressing jian he's comments. -- Thanks, Amit Langote EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
json_func_doc_v1.diff
Description: json_func_doc_v1.diff
