Subject: Re: jsonpath: Missing regex_like && starts with Errors?
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
 "David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com>
References: <9272D3A9-8805-4DE1-A95F-84EB210EC121@justatheory.com>
 <666CFC8E.1000108@acm.org>
 <DE3701E1-E45E-489B-AFE8-68E1379EEAD3@justatheory.com>
 <666DBFEC.70201@acm.org>
 <F789151A-85EF-4D72-81CB-49E5472B3A78@justatheory.com>
 <9BAFB50F-267E-4078-9558-36155E93A723@justatheory.com>
 <6670BC59.1010204@acm.org>
 <565BA19A-EC85-4DE0-A21B-A298C358096E@justatheory.com>
 <6670EE22.60808@acm.org>
 <6cb5a1cd-333b-449e-87a1-73e3802a3539@eisentraut.org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
From: Chapman Flack <jcflack@acm.org>
Message-ID: <66718E43.409@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:40:19 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6cb5a1cd-333b-449e-87a1-73e3802a3539@eisentraut.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/66718E43.409%40acm.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 06/18/24 08:30, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Are you saying we shouldn't allow .boolean() to be called on a JSON number?
> 
> I would concur that that's what the spec says.

Or, if we want to extend the spec and allow .boolean() on a JSON number,
should it just check that the number is nonzero or zero, rather than
checking that it can be serialized then deserialized as an int4 and
otherwise complaining that it isn't a number?

Which error code to use seems to be a separate issue. Is it possible that
more codes like 2202V non-boolean SQL/JSON item were added in a later spec
than we developed the code from?

I have not read through all of the code to see in how many other places
the error code doesn't match the spec.

Regards,
-Chap