public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
To: Jeevan Chalke <[email protected]>
To: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: More new SQL/JSON item methods
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 10:40:26 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAM2+6=Wys-tgwA15WkgW+8uR0SKncFLZuj0B+ukjvxbrebz9qQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM2+6=XjTyqrrqHAOj80r0wVQxJSxc0iyib9bPC55uFO9VKatg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAM2+6=UCSp74devvHYpMx5NvpyWbCO3gYvgpEYHtNYqF2j6Z9Q@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAM2+6=UrDfcsz0xn+oUmomOnPYazuP8dAM_Wrx5YMsWxXjWyKA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAM2+6=UMCtXVSk1NmGHzsYYY6xGdnaMMKxVaKUtG7o0jkiuyQg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAM2+6=XPHNJnGypXy2C_5TUWgCxCktz1GrwuzsSZSqb_R+pMXQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAM2+6=WYbL4gxpmEJcN5BvLYuMZUpruLQRZxFeKTBNNpksgN=g@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAM2+6=WyoinYoiuf3msxqH-hsPBoUz33MmrCpD_4Ceo6Nq1qOg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAM2+6=Wys-tgwA15WkgW+8uR0SKncFLZuj0B+ukjvxbrebz9qQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 2024-01-18 Th 09:25, Jeevan Chalke wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 1:03 AM Peter Eisentraut
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> OK. So with this, we don't need changes done in your 0001 patches.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Thanks, Andrew and Peter for the confirmation.
>
> Attached merged single patch along these lines.
Thanks, I have pushed this.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com
view thread (27+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: More new SQL/JSON item methods
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox