On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 12:53 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On 2023-Jul-18, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > Attached updated patches. In 0002, I removed the mention of the
> > RETURNING clause in the JSON(), JSON_SCALAR() documentation, which I
> > had forgotten to do in the last version which removed its support in
> > code.
>
> > I think 0001 looks ready to go. Alvaro?
>
> It looks reasonable to me.
Thanks for taking another look.
I will push this tomorrow.
> > Also, I've been wondering if it isn't too late to apply the following
> > to v16 too, so as to make the code look similar in both branches:
>
> Hmm.
>
> > 785480c953 Pass constructName to transformJsonValueExpr()
>
> I think 785480c953 can easily be considered a bugfix on 7081ac46ace8, so
> I agree it's better to apply it to 16.
OK.
> > b6e1157e7d Don't include CaseTestExpr in JsonValueExpr.formatted_expr
>
> I feel a bit uneasy about this one. It seems to assume that
> formatted_expr is always set, but at the same time it's not obvious that
> it is. (Maybe this aspect just needs some more commentary).
Hmm, I agree that the comments about formatted_expr could be improved
further, for which I propose the attached. Actually, staring some
more at this, I'm inclined to change makeJsonValueExpr() to allow
callers to pass it the finished 'formatted_expr' rather than set it by
themselves.
> I agree
> that it would be better to make both branches identical, because if
> there's a problem, we are better equipped to get a fix done to both.
>
> As for the removal of makeCaseTestExpr(), I agree -- of the six callers
> of makeNode(CastTestExpr), only two of them would be able to use the new
> function, so it doesn't look of general enough usefulness.
OK, so you agree with back-patching this one too, though perhaps only
after applying something like the aforementioned patch. Just to be
sure, would the good practice in this case be to squash the fixup
patch into b6e1157e7d before back-patching?
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com