On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 8:56 PM Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote: > On 11.09.24 13:25, Amit Langote wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 6:57 PM Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> > > wrote: > >> On 11.09.24 09:51, Amit Langote wrote: > >>>>> I've updated your patch to include updated test outputs and a nearby > >>>>> code comment expanded. Do you intend to commit it or do you prefer > >>>>> that I do? > >>>> > >>>> This change looks unrelated: > >>>> > >>>> -ERROR: new row for relation "test_jsonb_constraints" violates check > >>>> constraint "test_jsonb_constraint4" > >>>> +ERROR: new row for relation "test_jsonb_constraints" violates check > >>>> constraint "test_jsonb_constraint5" > >>>> > >>>> Is this some randomness in the way these constraints are evaluated? > >>> > >>> The result of JSON_QUERY() in the CHECK constraint changes, so the > >>> constraint that previously failed now succeeds after this change, > >>> because the comparison looked like this before and after: > >>> > >>> -- before > >>> postgres=# select jsonb '[10]' < jsonb '[10]'; > >>> ?column? > >>> ---------- > >>> f > >>> (1 row) > >>> > >>> -- after > >>> postgres=# select jsonb '10' < jsonb '[10]'; > >>> ?column? > >>> ---------- > >>> t > >>> (1 row) > >>> > >>> That causes the next constraint to be evaluated and its failure > >>> reported instead. > >>> > >>> In the attached, I've adjusted the constraint for the test case to be > >>> a bit more relevant and removed a nearby somewhat redundant test, > >>> mainly because its output changes after the adjustment. > >> > >> Ok, that looks good. Good that we could clear that up a bit. > > > > Thanks for checking. Would you like me to commit it? > > Please do.
Done. Thanks for the report and the patch. -- Thanks, Amit Langote
