> On 21.06.2024, at 06:46, David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, June 20, 2024, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> pá 21. 6. 2024 v 6:01 odesílatel Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> napsal:
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 10:01 AM David G. Johnston
>> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > By the standard, it is implementation-defined whether JSON parsing errors
>> > > should be caught by ON ERROR clause.
>> >
>> > Absent someone contradicting that claim I retract my position here and am fine with failing if these "functions"
aresupplied with something that cannot be cast to json. I'd document them like functions that accept json with the
implicationsthat any casting to json happens before the function is called and thus its arguments do not apply to that
step.
>>
>> Thanks for that clarification.
>>
>> So, there are the following options:
>>
>> 1. Disallow anything but jsonb for context_item (the patch I posted yesterday)
>>
>> 2. Continue allowing context_item to be non-json character or utf-8
>> encoded bytea strings, but document that any parsing errors do not
>> respect the ON ERROR clause.
>>
>> 3. Go ahead and fix implicit casts to jsonb so that any parsing errors
>> respect ON ERROR (no patch written yet).
>>
>> David's vote seems to be 2, which is my inclination too. Markus' vote
>> seems to be either 1 or 3. Anyone else?
With a very strong preference of 3.
>>
>> @3 can be possibly messy (although be near Oracle or standard). I don't think it is safe - one example '{a:10}' is
validfor Oracle, but not for Postgres, and using @3 impacts different results (better to raise an exception).
The question of what is valid JSON is a different question, I guess. My original report is about something that is
invalideverywhere. Having that in line would be a start. Also I believe Oracle’s habit to accept unquoted object keys
isnot covered by the standard (unless defined as a JSON format and also explicitly using the corresponding FORMAT
clause).
>> The effect of @1 and @2 is similar - @1 is better so the user needs to explicitly cast, so maybe it is cleaner, so
thecast should not be handled, @2 is more user friendly, because it accepts unknown string literal. From a developer
perspectiveI prefer @1, from a user perspective I prefer @2. Maybe @2 is a good compromise.
>
> 2 also has the benefit of being standard conforming while 1 does not.
Why do you think so? Do you have any references or is this just based on previous statements in this discussion?
-markus