Hi Alex!
Glad you made so much effort to develop this patch set!
I think this is an important part of Json functionality.
I've looked into you patch and noticed change in behavior
in new test results:
postgres@postgres=# create table t(x int, y jsonb);
insert into t select 1, '{"a": 1, "b": 42}'
On 13/03/2025 15:02, Alexandra Wang wrote:
Hi Mark,
Thank you so much for reviewing! I have attached the new patches.
Hi Alex,
I am reviewing this from a feature perspective and not from a code
perspective. On the whole, this looks good to me from a standards point
of view.
There ar
This patch set has expanded significantly in scope recently, which is
probably the right thing, but that means there won't be enough time to
review and finish it for PG18. So I'm moving this to the next
commitfest now.
On 13.03.25 15:02, Alexandra Wang wrote:
Hi Mark,
Thank you so much for
On 2025-03-04 Tu 10:34 AM, Mark Dilger wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 6:05 AM Mark Dilger
wrote:
But then I tried:
+DO $$
+DECLARE
+ a jsonb := '{"": 6, "NU": [{"": [[3]]}, [6], [2], "bCi"],
"aaf": [-6, -8]}'::jsonb;
+BEGIN
+ WHILE a IS NOT NULL
+ LOOP
On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 6:05 AM Mark Dilger
wrote:
> But then I tried:
>
> +DO $$
> +DECLARE
> + a jsonb := '{"": 6, "NU": [{"": [[3]]}, [6], [2], "bCi"], "aaf": [-6,
> -8]}'::jsonb;
> +BEGIN
> + WHILE a IS NOT NULL
> + LOOP
> +RAISE NOTICE '%', a;
> +a := COALESCE(a."NU", a[2]);
> + E
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 12:23 PM Alexandra Wang
wrote:
> I've attached v10, which addresses your feedback.
>
>
Hi Alex! Thanks for the patches.
In src/test/regress/sql/jsonb.sql, the section marked with "-- slices are
not supported" should be relabeled. That comment predates these patches,
and
Hi Matheus,
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 1:43 PM Matheus Alcantara
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 4:16 PM Matheus Alcantara
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > The code comments and the commit messages help a lot when reviewing!
> Thanks for
> > the new version.
> >
> > The code LGTM and check-world i
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 4:16 PM Matheus Alcantara
wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> The code comments and the commit messages help a lot when reviewing! Thanks
> for
> the new version.
>
> The code LGTM and check-world is happy. I've also performed some tests and
> everything looks good!
>
> Just some minor
Hi Alex,
The code comments and the commit messages help a lot when reviewing! Thanks for
the new version.
The code LGTM and check-world is happy. I've also performed some tests and
everything looks good!
Just some minor points about this new version:
## v9-0005
Typo on commit message title
##
Hello hackers,
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 9:46 AM Alexandra Wang
wrote:
> Summary of changes:
>
> v8-0001 through v8-0005:
> Refactoring and preparatory steps for the actual implementation.
>
> v8-0006 (Implement read-only dot notation for JSONB):
> I removed the vars field (introduced in v7) from
Hello hackers,
I’ve fixed the compilation failure for hstore and updated the patches.
In this version, I’ve further cleaned up the code and added more
comments. I hope this helps!
Summary of changes:
v8-0001 through v8-0005:
Refactoring and preparatory steps for the actual implementation.
v8-00
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 1:20 AM Alexandra Wang
wrote:
> I attached a minimized version of Nikita’s patch (v7):
>
> - The first three patches are refactoring steps that could be squashed
> if preferred.
> - The last two patches implement dot notation and wildcard access,
> respectively.
>
Hi hackers,
On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 3:12 AM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 21.11.24 23:46, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> Questions:
> >>
> >> 1. Since Nikita’s patches did not address the JSON data type, and JSON
> >> currently does not support subscripting, should we limit the initial
> >> feature s
On 21.11.24 23:46, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Questions:
1. Since Nikita’s patches did not address the JSON data type, and JSON
currently does not support subscripting, should we limit the initial
feature set to JSONB dot-notation for now? In other words, if we aim
to fully support JSON simplified ac
On 2024-11-21 Th 3:52 PM, Alexandra Wang wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 6:06 PM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
Hi, hackers.
I have implemented dot notation for jsonb using type subscripting back
in April 2023, but failed post it because I left Postgres Professional
company soon after and have no
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 6:06 PM Nikita Glukhov wrote:
>
> Hi, hackers.
>
> I have implemented dot notation for jsonb using type subscripting back
> in April 2023, but failed post it because I left Postgres Professional
> company soon after and have not worked anywhere since, not even had
> an
On 07.11.24 22:57, Alexandra Wang wrote:
The v5 patch includes the following updates:
- Fixed the aforementioned issue and added more tests covering composite
types with domains, nested domains, and arrays of domains over
JSON/JSONB.
- Refactored the logic for parsing JSON/JSONB object fields b
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 7:33 AM jian he wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 11:45 PM Alexandra Wang
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I didn’t run pgindent earlier, so here’s the updated version with the
> > correct indentation. Hope this helps!
> >
>
> the attached patch solves the domain type issue, A
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 11:45 PM Alexandra Wang
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I didn’t run pgindent earlier, so here’s the updated version with the
> correct indentation. Hope this helps!
>
the attached patch solves the domain type issue, Andrew mentioned in the thread.
I also added a test case: composite
On Sep 27, 2024, at 12:07, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> That would defeat being able to chain these.
Not if it’s a different operator. But I’m fine to just keep using ->> at the
end of a chain.
D
On 2024-09-27 Fr 5:49 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Sep 26, 2024, at 16:45, Alexandra Wang wrote:
I didn’t run pgindent earlier, so here’s the updated version with the
correct indentation. Hope this helps!
Oh, nice! I don’t suppose the standard also has defined an operator equivalent to
On Sep 26, 2024, at 16:45, Alexandra Wang wrote:
> I didn’t run pgindent earlier, so here’s the updated version with the
> correct indentation. Hope this helps!
Oh, nice! I don’t suppose the standard also has defined an operator equivalent
to ->>, though, has it? I tend to want the text output
On 2024-09-26 Th 11:45 AM, Alexandra Wang wrote:
Hi,
I didn’t run pgindent earlier, so here’s the updated version with the
correct indentation. Hope this helps!
This is a really nice feature, and provides a lot of expressive power
for such a small piece of code.
I notice this doesn't see
Hi,
I didn’t run pgindent earlier, so here’s the updated version with the
correct indentation. Hope this helps!
Best,
Alex
v4-0001-Add-JSON-JSONB-simplified-accessor.patch
Description: Binary data
Hi Peter,
Thank you so much for helping!
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 12:44 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 29.08.24 18:33, Alexandra Wang wrote:
> > I’ve implemented the member and array accessors and attached two
> > alternative patches:
> >
> > 1. v1-0001-Add-JSON-JSONB-simplified-accessor.patch
On 29.08.24 18:33, Alexandra Wang wrote:
I’ve implemented the member and array accessors and attached two
alternative patches:
1. v1-0001-Add-JSON-JSONB-simplified-accessor.patch: This patch
enables dot access to JSON object fields and subscript access to
indexed JSON array elements by convertin
Hello Hackers,
I’ve attached a patch to start adding SQL:2023 JSON simplified
accessor support. This allows accessing JSON or JSONB fields using dot
notation (e.g., colname.field.field...), similar to composite types.
Currently, PostgreSQL uses nonstandard syntax like colname->x->y for
JS
27 matches
Mail list logo
