Re: SQL JSON path enhanced numeric literals
Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc@gmail.com>
From: Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc@gmail.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>,
Vik Fearing <vik@postgresfriends.org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-03-31T14:57:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi!
Sorry to bother, but there is a question on JsonPath - how many bits in the
JsonPath
header could be used for the version? The JsonPath header is 4 bytes, and
currently
the Version part is defined as
#define JSONPATH_VERSION (0x01)
Thanks!
On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 6:55 PM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 03.03.23 21:16, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> > I think this new feature ought to be mentioned in the docs somewhere.
> > Perhaps a sentence or two in the note below table 9.49 would suffice,
> > since it looks like that's where jsonpath numbers are mentioned for
> > the first time.
>
> Done. I actually put it into the data types chapter, where some other
> differences between SQL and SQL/JSON syntax were already discussed.
>
> > In jsonpath_scan.l, I think the hex/oct/bininteger cases could do with
> > a comment, such as
> >
> > /* Non-decimal integers in ECMAScript; must not have underscore after
> radix */
> > hexinteger 0[xX]{hexdigit}(_?{hexdigit})*
> > octinteger 0[oO]{octdigit}(_?{octdigit})*
> > bininteger 0[bB]{bindigit}(_?{bindigit})*
> >
> > since that's different from the main lexer's syntax.
>
> done
>
> > Perhaps it's worth mentioning that difference in the docs.
>
> done
>
> > Otherwise, this looks good to me.
>
> committed
>
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Nikita Malakhov
Postgres Professional
The Russian Postgres Company
https://postgrespro.ru/
Commits
-
SQL JSON path enhanced numeric literals
- 102a5c164a91 16.0 landed