On Thursday, June 20, 2024, Markus Winand <markus.win...@winand.at> wrote:
> > > > On 21.06.2024, at 06:46, David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > > > > 2 also has the benefit of being standard conforming while 1 does not. > > Why do you think so? Do you have any references or is this just based on > previous statements in this discussion? > > Hearsay. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFj8pRCnzO2cnHi5ebXciV%3DtuGVvAQOW9uPU%2BDQV1GkL31R%3D-g%40mail.gmail.com > 4) If ALREADY PARSED is False, then it is implementation-defined whether the > following rules are applied: > a) The General Rules of Subclause 9.36, "Parsing JSON text", are applied with > JT as JSON TEXT, an implementation-defined <JSON key uniqueness constraint> > as UNIQUENESS CONSTRAINT, and FO as FORMAT OPTION; let ST be the STATUS and > let CISJI be the SQL/JSON ITEM returned from the application of those > General Rules. > b) If ST is not successful completion, then ST is returned as the STATUS of > this application of these General Rules, and no further General Rules of > this Subclause are applied. But maybe I’m mis-interpreting that snippet and Nikita’s related commentary regarding have chosen between options for this implementation-defined feature. David j.
