On Sep 26, 2024, at 13:59, Florents Tselai <florents.tse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Speaking of extensible: the jsonpath standard does mention function > extensions [1] , > so it looks like we're covered by the standard, and the mutability aspect is > an implementation detail. No? That’s not the standard used for Postgres jsonpath. Postgres follows the SQL/JSON standard in the SQL standard, which is not publicly available, but a few people on the list have copies they’ve purchased and so could provide some context. In a previous post I wondered if the SQL standard had some facility for function extensions, but I suspect not. Maybe in the next iteration? > And having said that, the whole jsonb/jsonpath parser/executor infrastructure > is extremely powerful > and kinda under-utilized if we use it "only" for jsonpath. > Tbh, I can see it supporting more specific DSLs and even offering hooks for > extensions. > And I know for certain I'm not the only one thinking about this. > See [2] for example where they've lifted, shifted and renamed the > jsonb/jsonpath infra to build a separate language for graphs I’m all for extensibility, though jsonpath does need to continue to comply with the SQL standard. Do you have some idea of the sorts of hooks that would allow extension authors to use some of that underlying capability? Best, David
