Hi Alvaro, On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 2:04 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > On 2024-Mar-28, Amit Langote wrote: > > > Here's patch 1 for the time being that implements barebones > > JSON_TABLE(), that is, without NESTED paths/columns and PLAN clause. > > I've tried to shape the interfaces so that those features can be added > > in future commits without significant rewrite of the code that > > implements barebones JSON_TABLE() functionality. I'll know whether > > that's really the case when I rebase the full patch over it. > > I think this barebones patch looks much closer to something that can be > committed for pg17, given the current commitfest timeline. Maybe we > should just slip NESTED and PLAN to pg18 to focus current efforts into > getting the basic functionality in 17. When I looked at the JSON_TABLE > patch last month, it appeared far too large to be reviewable in > reasonable time. The fact that this split now exists gives me hope that > we can get at least the first part of it.
Thanks for chiming in. I agree that 0001 looks more manageable. > (A note that PLAN seems to correspond to separate features T824+T838, so > leaving that one out would still let us claim T821 "Basic SQL/JSON query > operators" ... however, the NESTED clause does not appear to be a > separate SQL feature; in particular it does not appear to correspond to > T827, though I may be reading the standard wrong. So if we don't have > NESTED, apparently we could not claim to support T821.) I've posted 0002 just now, which shows that adding just NESTED but not PLAN might be feasible. -- Thanks, Amit Langote