Feedback-ID: ie0a040ee:Fastmail
Message-ID: <1d092c02-8249-4e56-8b8e-ae4db95b8fde@eisentraut.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 20:33:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: More new SQL/JSON item methods
To: Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: 
 <CAM2+6=XjTyqrrqHAOj80r0wVQxJSxc0iyib9bPC55uFO9VKatg@mail.gmail.com>
 <6d4feb29-6ced-a7b0-2c15-42d3e8e201f7@eisentraut.org>
 <CAM2+6=XTW1COd+56ekjP=CUceZyrgyrcBge_z0ZRkCgVwcGHQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <bc03e76e-15d6-744e-db53-2e4417b5fe05@dunslane.net>
 <CAM2+6=UCSp74devvHYpMx5NvpyWbCO3gYvgpEYHtNYqF2j6Z9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <c3158517-940d-278e-d9ea-846c65430a14@dunslane.net>
 <CAM2+6=UrDfcsz0xn+oUmomOnPYazuP8dAM_Wrx5YMsWxXjWyKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d37da0bc-204a-125a-dfeb-c3d7cc639d69@dunslane.net>
 <CAM2+6=UMCtXVSk1NmGHzsYYY6xGdnaMMKxVaKUtG7o0jkiuyQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e913dde5-0209-441c-8040-dd2ace6415e0@eisentraut.org>
 <fa454906-7539-4070-b51a-2e7dcfb6b741@eisentraut.org>
 <CAM2+6=XPHNJnGypXy2C_5TUWgCxCktz1GrwuzsSZSqb_R+pMXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM2+6=WYbL4gxpmEJcN5BvLYuMZUpruLQRZxFeKTBNNpksgN=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <cc883de1-ae89-438b-a97e-926ad332f5ba@eisentraut.org>
 <CAM2+6=WyoinYoiuf3msxqH-hsPBoUz33MmrCpD_4Ceo6Nq1qOg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAM2+6=WyoinYoiuf3msxqH-hsPBoUz33MmrCpD_4Ceo6Nq1qOg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1d092c02-8249-4e56-8b8e-ae4db95b8fde%40eisentraut.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 17.01.24 10:03, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
> I added unary '+' and '-' support as well and thus thought of having 
> separate rules altogether rather than folding those in.
> 
>     Per SQL standard, the precision and scale arguments are unsigned
>     integers, so unary plus and minus signs are not supported.  So my patch
>     removes that support, but I didn't adjust the regression tests for that.
> 
> 
> However, PostgreSQL numeric casting does support a negative scale. Here 
> is an example:
> 
> # select '12345'::numeric(4,-2);
>   numeric
> ---------
>     12300
> (1 row)
> 
> And thus thought of supporting those.
> Do we want this JSON item method to behave differently here?

Ok, it would make sense to support this in SQL/JSON as well.

> I will merge them all into one and will try to keep them in the order 
> specified in sql_features.txt.
> However, for documentation, it makes more sense to keep them in logical 
> order than the alphabetical one. What are your views on this?

The documentation can be in a different order.