> > For whatever it's worth, I'll note that SQL Server's OPENJSON does do > > this (so when a JSON string property is extracted as a binary type, > > base64 encoding is assumed). Other databases also have very specific > > documented conversion rules for JSON_VALUE RETURNING (Oracle <https:// > > docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/19/adjsn/clauses- > > used-in-functions-and-conditions-for-json.html#GUID- > > DE9F29D3-1C23-4271-9DCD-E585866576D2>, DB2 <https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/ > > i/7.3?topic=functions-json-table#rbafzscajsontable__json_result> (table > > 1)). I'm basically trying to show that RETURNING definitely isn't a > > simple cast-from-string in other databases, but is a distinct conversion > > mechanism that takes into account the fact the the origin data comes > > from JSON. > > According to the SQL standard, once you account for various special > cases (non-scalar values, null values), it comes down to a cast. >
OK. I don't have the SQL standard here, but I'll just note that this doesn't seem to be what most/all other databases are doing - there's maybe room for interpretation there (but again, I have no idea). Applying certain transformations where needed certainly seems like the more useful thing to do, like in this case.
