On 2022-04-08 Fr 08:15, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > On 4/8/22 08:02, Justin Pryzby wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 04:25:58PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> No code chunks left, only a documentation patch which should land >> Documentation review for a6baa4bad. >> >>> Construct a JSON the provided strings: >> a JSON what ? >> *from* the provided strings ? >> >>> Construct a JSON from the provided values various types: >> should say "a JSON scalar" ? >> *of* various types ? >> >>> Construct a JSON object from the provided key/value pairs of various types: >> For comparison, that one looks ok. >> >> + <function>JSON_EXISTS</function> function checks whether the provided >> + <function>JSON_VALUE</function> function extracts a value from the >> provided >> + <function>JSON_QUERY</function> function extracts an >> <acronym>SQL/JSON</acronym> >> + <function>JSON_TABLE</function> function queries >> <acronym>JSON</acronym> data >> + <function>JSON_TABLE</function> uses the >> + <function>JSON_SERIALIZE</function> function transforms a SQL/JSON >> value >> >> I think all these should all begin with "THE >...< function ...", like the >> others do. >> >> +To use other types, you must create the <literal>CAST</literal> from >> <type>json</type> for this type. >> => create a cast from json to this type. >> >> +Values can be null, but not keys. >> I think it's clearer to say "..but keys cannot." >> >> + For any scalar other than a number or a Boolean the text >> >> Boolean COMMA the text >> >> + The path name must be unique and cannot coincide with column names. >> Maybe say "name must be unique and distinct from the column names." >> >> + ... If you specify a <command>GROUP BY</command> >> + or an <command>ORDER BY</command> clause, this function returns a >> separate JSON object >> + for each table row. >> >> "for each table row" sounds inaccurate or imprecise. The SELECT docs say >> this: >> | GROUP BY will condense into a single row all selected rows that share the >> same values for the grouped expressions >> >> BTW, the documentation references look a little like OIDs... >> Does someone already have an SNMP-based doc browser ? >> | For details, see Section 9.16.3.4.2. > > > Many thanks, useful. > > I already had a couple of these items on my list but I ran out of time > before tiredness overcame me last night. > > I'm planning on removing some of that stuff that generates the last > complaint if I can do it without too much violence. > >
I have attended to most of these. I just removed the GROUP BY sentence, I don't think it added anything useful. We already refer users to the aggregates page. I will deal with the structural issues soon. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
