Horton

Re: remaining sql/json patches

amit <amitlangote09@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Date: 2023-07-13T03:47:27Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. SQL/JSON: Various improvements to SQL/JSON query function docs

  2. SQL/JSON: Fix some obsolete comments.

  3. SQL/JSON: Fix issues with DEFAULT .. ON ERROR / EMPTY

  4. JSON_TABLE: Add support for NESTED paths and columns

  5. Fix JsonExpr deparsing to emit QUOTES and WRAPPER correctly

  6. Fix typo introduced in 6185c9737

  7. Add basic JSON_TABLE() functionality

  8. Avoid splitting errmsg string to span multiple lines

  9. Add SQL/JSON query functions

  10. Implement various jsonpath methods

  11. Add soft error handling to some expression nodes

  12. Adjust populate_record_field() to handle errors softly

  13. Refactor code used by jsonpath executor to fetch variables

  14. Test EXPLAIN (FORMAT JSON) ... XMLTABLE

  15. Simplify productions for FORMAT JSON [ ENCODING name ]

  16. Add trailing commas to enum definitions

  17. doc: add missing <returnvalue> and whitespace

  18. Add more SQL/JSON constructor functions

  19. Rename a nonterminal used in SQL/JSON grammar

  20. Some refactoring to export json(b) conversion functions

  21. Don't include CaseTestExpr in JsonValueExpr.formatted_expr

  22. Code review for commit b6e1157e7d

  23. Pass constructName to transformJsonValueExpr()

  24. Unify JSON categorize type API and export for external use

  25. Make some indentation in gram.y consistent

  26. Allow most keywords to be used as column labels without requiring AS.

  27. Reduce size of backend scanner's tables.

  28. Use perfect hashing, instead of binary search, for keyword lookup.

Attachments

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 10:23 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 6:41 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 11:52 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > > I forgot to add:
> >
> > Thanks for the review of these.
> >
> > > * 0001 looks an obvious improvement.  You could just push it now, to
> > > avoid carrying it forward anymore.  I would just put the constructName
> > > ahead of value expr in the argument list, though.
> >
> > Sure, that makes sense.
> >
> > > * 0002: I have no idea what this is (though I probably should).  I would
> > > also push it right away -- if anything, so that we figure out sooner
> > > that it was actually needed in the first place.  Or maybe you just need
> > > the right test cases?
> >
> > Hmm, I don't think having or not having CaseTestExpr makes a
> > difference to the result of evaluating JsonValueExpr.format_expr, so
> > there are no test cases to prove one way or the other.
> >
> > After staring at this again for a while, I think I figured out why the
> > CaseTestExpr might have been put there in the first place.  It seems
> > to have to do with the fact that JsonValueExpr.raw_expr is currently
> > evaluated independently of JsonValueExpr.formatted_expr and the
> > CaseTestExpr propagates the result of the former to the evaluation of
> > the latter.  Actually, formatted_expr is effectively
> > formatting_function(<result-of-raw_expr>), so if we put raw_expr
> > itself into formatted_expr such that it is evaluated as part of
> > evaluating formatted_expr, then there is no need for the CaseTestExpr
> > as the propagator for raw_expr's result.
> >
> > I've expanded the commit message to mention the details.
> >
> > I'll push these tomorrow.
>
> I updated it to make the code in makeJsonConstructorExpr() that *does*
> need to use a CaseTestExpr a bit more readable.  Also, updated the
> comment above CaseTestExpr to mention this instance of its usage.

Pushed these two just now.

> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 11:47 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > > On 2023-Jul-10, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > > > I'm not in love with the fact that JSON and JSONB have pretty much
> > > > > parallel type categorizing functionality. It seems entirely artificial.
> > > > > Maybe this didn't matter when these were contained inside each .c file
> > > > > and nobody else had to deal with that, but I think it's not good to make
> > > > > this an exported concept.  Is it possible to do away with that?  I mean,
> > > > > reduce both to a single categorization enum, and a single categorization
> > > > > API.  Here you have to cast the enum value to int in order to make
> > > > > ExecInitExprRec work, and that seems a bit lame; moreso when the
> > > > > "is_jsonb" is determined separately (cf. ExecEvalJsonConstructor)
> > > >
> > > > OK, I agree that a unified categorizing API might be better.  I'll
> > > > look at making this better.  Btw, does src/include/common/jsonapi.h
> > > > look like an appropriate place for that?
> > >
> > > Hmm, that header is frontend-available, and the type-category appears to
> > > be backend-only, so maybe no.  Perhaps jsonfuncs.h is more apropos?
> > > execExpr.c is already dealing with array internals, so having to deal
> > > with json internals doesn't seem completely out of place.
> >
> > OK, attached 0003 does it like that.  Essentially, I decided to only
> > keep JsonTypeCategory and json_categorize_type(), with some
> > modifications to accommodate the callers in jsonb.c.
> >
> > > > > In the 2023 standard, JSON_SCALAR is just
> > > > >
> > > > > <JSON scalar> ::= JSON_SCALAR <left paren> <value expression> <right paren>
> > > > >
> > > > > but we seem to have added a <JSON output format> clause to it.  Should
> > > > > we really?
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, I am not seeing <JSON output format> in the rule for JSON_SCALAR,
> > >
> > > Agh, yeah, I confused myself, sorry.
> > >
> > > > Per what I wrote above, the grammar for JSON() and JSON_SCALAR() does
> > > > not allow specifying the FORMAT clause.  Though considering what you
> > > > wrote, the RETURNING clause does appear to be an extension to the
> > > > standard's spec.
> > >
> > > Hmm, I see that <JSON output clause> (which is RETURNING plus optional
> > > FORMAT) appears included in JSON_OBJECT, JSON_ARRAY, JSON_QUERY,
> > > JSON_SERIALIZE, JSON_OBJECTAGG, JSON_ARRAYAGG.  It's not necessarily a
> > > bad thing to have it in other places, but we should consider it
> > > carefully.  Do we really want/need it in JSON() and JSON_SCALAR()?
> >
> > I thought that removing that support breaks JSON_TABLE() or something
> > but it doesn't, so maybe we can do without the extension if there's no
> > particular reason it's there in the first place.  Maybe Andrew (cc'd)
> > remembers why he decided in [1] to (re-) add the RETURNING clause to
> > JSON() and JSON_SCALAR()?
> >
> > Updated patches, with 0003 being a new refactoring patch, are
> > attached.  Patches 0004~ contain a few updates around JsonValueExpr.
> > Specifically, I removed the case for T_JsonValueExpr in
> > transformExprRecurse(), because I realized that JsonValueExpr
> > expressions never appear embedded in other expressions.  That allowed
> > me to get rid of some needless refactoring around
> > transformJsonValueExpr() in the patch that adds JSON_VALUE() etc.
>
> I noticed that 0003 was giving some warnings, which is fixed in the
> attached updated set of patches.

Here are the remaining patches, rebased.  I'll remove the RETURNING
clause from JSON() and JSON_SCALAR() in the next version that I will
post tomorrow unless I hear objections.

--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com