Fix jsonb_object_agg() and related aggs used as window functions.

When being used as a window function, these aggregates must run the
finalization step repeatedly on their accumulated state.  During that,
discarding null-valued pairs isn't okay if we want to reject duplicate
keys, since per SQL spec a null-valued pair still participates in
duplicate key checking.  Hence, when both those options are selected
(jsonb_object_agg_unique_strict) run uniqueifyJsonbObject on a copy of
the pairs array, keeping the original data structure unmodified.
We don't want to do that when unique_keys isn't specified, because
repeat de-duplication can be very expensive when there are many
duplicates, but fortunately we don't have to.

uniqueifyJsonbObject did not renumber the pairs it kept, so a pair
added later could lose to an older one with the same key.  Renumber
them to ensure that we preserve last-one-wins behavior across
multiple finalizations.  Also improve related comments.

While adding test cases to cover these mistakes, I chose to sync up
all the json[b]_object_agg tests in json.sql and jsonb.sql.  This
exposed that json_object_agg() fails to de-duplicate keys in its
output, which seems like a pre-existing bug; but for this commit
let's just memorialize its behavior.

Author: shihao zhong <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Discussion: 
https://postgr.es/m/CAGRkXqTCfSu=aEUCvKDTGroEWOcyz3MCv4Xi8x1PZ1T1rEmG=q...@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 19

Branch
------
REL_19_STABLE

Details
-------
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/56b463f373c644c321f938ae9db30a7c4a66cd58

Modified Files
--------------
src/backend/utils/adt/jsonb.c       | 24 ++++++++++++--
src/backend/utils/adt/jsonb_util.c  | 24 +++++++++-----
src/test/regress/expected/json.out  | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
src/test/regress/expected/jsonb.out | 20 ++++++++++++
src/test/regress/sql/json.sql       | 21 ++++++++++++
src/test/regress/sql/jsonb.sql      | 11 +++++++
6 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

Reply via email to