On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 10:10 AM Joe Conway <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 12/6/23 18:09, Joe Conway wrote:
> > On 12/6/23 14:47, Joe Conway wrote:
> >> On 12/6/23 13:59, Daniel Verite wrote:
> >>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> IMNSHO, we should produce either a single JSON
> >>>> document (the ARRAY case) or a series of JSON documents, one per row
> >>>> (the LINES case).
> >>>
> >>> "COPY Operations" in the doc says:
> >>>
> >>> " The backend sends a CopyOutResponse message to the frontend, followed
> >>> by zero or more CopyData messages (always one per row), followed by
> >>> CopyDone".
> >>>
> >>> In the ARRAY case, the first messages with the copyjsontest
> >>> regression test look like this (tshark output):
> >>>
> >>> PostgreSQL
> >>> Type: CopyOut response
> >>> Length: 13
> >>> Format: Text (0)
> >>> Columns: 3
> >>> Format: Text (0)
> >>> PostgreSQL
> >>> Type: Copy data
> >>> Length: 6
> >>> Copy data: 5b0a
> >>> PostgreSQL
> >>> Type: Copy data
> >>> Length: 76
> >>> Copy data:
> >>> 207b226964223a312c226631223a226c696e652077697468205c2220696e2069743a2031…
> >>>
> >>> The first Copy data message with contents "5b0a" does not qualify
> >>> as a row of data with 3 columns as advertised in the CopyOut
> >>> message. Isn't that a problem?
> >>
> >>
> >> Is it a real problem, or just a bit of documentation change that I missed?
> >>
> >> Anything receiving this and looking for a json array should know how to
> >> assemble the data correctly despite the extra CopyData messages.
> >
> > Hmm, maybe the real problem here is that Columns do not equal "3" for
> > the json mode case -- that should really say "1" I think, because the
> > row is not represented as 3 columns but rather 1 json object.
> >
> > Does that sound correct?
> >
> > Assuming yes, there is still maybe an issue that there are two more
> > "rows" that actual output rows (the "[" and the "]"), but maybe those
> > are less likely to cause some hazard?
>
>
> The attached should fix the CopyOut response to say one column. I.e. it
> ought to look something like:
>
> PostgreSQL
> Type: CopyOut response
> Length: 13
> Format: Text (0)
> Columns: 1
> Format: Text (0)
> PostgreSQL
> Type: Copy data
> Length: 6
> Copy data: 5b0a
> PostgreSQL
> Type: Copy data
> Length: 76
> Copy data: [...]
>
If I'm not missing, copyto_json.007.diff is the latest patch but it
needs to be rebased to the current HEAD. Here are random comments:
---
if (opts_out->json_mode)
+ {
+ if (is_from)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
+ errmsg("cannot use JSON mode in COPY FROM")));
+ }
+ else if (opts_out->force_array)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
+ errmsg("COPY FORCE_ARRAY requires JSON mode")));
I think that flatting these two condition make the code more readable:
if (opts_out->json_mode && is_from)
ereport(ERROR, ...);
if (!opts_out->json_mode && opts_out->force_array)
ereport(ERROR, ...);
Also these checks can be moved close to other checks at the end of
ProcessCopyOptions().
---
@@ -3395,6 +3395,10 @@ copy_opt_item:
{
$$ = makeDefElem("format", (Node *) makeString("csv"), @1);
}
+ | JSON
+ {
+ $$ = makeDefElem("format", (Node *) makeString("json"), @1);
+ }
| HEADER_P
{
$$ = makeDefElem("header", (Node *) makeBoolean(true), @1);
@@ -3427,6 +3431,10 @@ copy_opt_item:
{
$$ = makeDefElem("encoding", (Node *) makeString($2), @1);
}
+ | FORCE ARRAY
+ {
+ $$ = makeDefElem("force_array", (Node *)
makeBoolean(true), @1);
+ }
;
I believe we don't need to support new options in old-style syntax.
---
@@ -3469,6 +3477,10 @@ copy_generic_opt_elem:
{
$$ = makeDefElem($1, $2, @1);
}
+ | FORMAT_LA copy_generic_opt_arg
+ {
+ $$ = makeDefElem("format", $2, @1);
+ }
;
I think it's not necessary. "format" option is already handled in
copy_generic_opt_elem.
---
+/* need delimiter to start next json array element */
+static bool json_row_delim_needed = false;
I think it's cleaner to include json_row_delim_needed into CopyToStateData.
---
Splitting the patch into two patches: add json format and add
force_array option would make reviews easy.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
