Re: SQL/JSON features for v15

On 2022-08-09 Tu 16:58, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (Personal hat, not RMT hat unless otherwise noted).
>
> This thread[1] raised some concerns around the implementation of the
> SQL/JSON features that are slated for v15, which includes an
> outstanding open item[2]. Given the current state of the discussion,
> when the RMT met on Aug 8, they several options, readable here[3].
> Given we are now into the later part of the release cycle, we need to
> make some decisions on how to proceed with this feature given the
> concerns raised.
>
> Per additional discussion on the thread, the group wanted to provide
> more visibility into the discussion to get opinions on how to proceed
> for the v15 release.
>
> Without rehashing the thread, the options presented were:
>
> 1. Fixing the concerns addressed in the thread around the v15 SQL/JSON
> features implementation, noting that this would likely entail at least
> one more beta release and would push the GA date past our normal
> timeframe.
>
> 2. Try to commit a subset of the features that caused less debate.
> This was ruled out.
>
> 3. Revert the v15 SQL/JSON features work.
>
> <RMT hat>
> Based on the current release timing and the open issues presented on
> the thread, and the RMT had recommended reverting, but preferred to
> drive consensus on next steps.
> </RMT hat>
>
> From a release advocacy standpoint, I need about 6 weeks lead time to
> put together the GA launch. We're at the point where I typically
> deliver a draft release announcement. From this, given this involves a
> high visibility feature, I would want some clarity on what option we
> would like to pursue. Once the announcement translation process has
> begun (and this is when we have consensus on the release
> announcement), it becomes more challenging to change things out.
>
> From a personal standpoint (restating from[3]), I would like to see
> what we could do to include support for this batch of the SQL/JSON
> features in v15. What is included looks like it closes most of the gap
> on what we've been missing syntactically since the standard was
> adopted, and the JSON_TABLE work is very convenient for converting
> JSON data into a relational format. I believe having this feature set
> is important for maintaining standards compliance, interoperability,
> tooling support, and general usability. Plus, JSON still seems to be
> pretty popular.
>
> We're looking for additional input on what makes sense as a best
> course of action, given what is presented in[3].
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
> [1]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20220616233130.rparivafipt6doj3%40alap3.anarazel.de
> [2] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_15_Open_Items
> [3]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/787cef45-15de-8f1d-ed58-a1c1435bfc0e%40postgresql.org


To preserve options I will start preparing reversion patches. Given
there are I think more than 20 commits all told that could be fun, and
will probably take me a little while. The sad part is that to the best
of my knowledge this code is producing correct results, and not
disturbing the stability or performance of anything else. There was a
performance issue but it's been dealt with AIUI.


cheers


andrew


--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com