On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 11:26 AM jian he <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 12:41 AM Florents Tselai > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I (and others I assume) would really like to see this in 19; > > glancing at the thread above and in the test cases I see this is in good > > shape for comitter review. > > No? > > > > If I were to add something it would be an example in copy.sgml > > <para> > > When the <literal>FORCE_ARRAY</literal> option is enabled, > > the entire output is wrapped in a JSON array and individual rows are > > separated by commas: > > <programlisting> > > COPY (SELECT id, name FROM users) TO STDOUT (FORMAT JSON, FORCE_ARRAY); > > </programlisting> > > <programlisting> > > [ > > {"id": 1, "name": "Alice"} > > ,{"id": 2, "name": "Bob"} > > ,{"id": 3, "name": "Charlie"} > > ] > > </programlisting> > > </para> > > > > v23-0003-Add-option-force_array-for-COPY-JSON-FORMAT.patch > I've added: > > +<para> > + When the <literal>FORCE_ARRAY</literal> option is enabled, > + the entire output is wrapped in a single JSON array with rows > separated by commas: > +<programlisting> > +COPY (SELECT * FROM (VALUES(1),(2)) val(id)) TO STDOUT (FORMAT JSON, > FORCE_ARRAY); > +</programlisting> > +The output is as follows: > +<screen> > +[ > + {"id":1} > +,{"id":2} > +] > +</screen> > +</para> > + > + > > > Also, apologies if that has been discussed already, > > is there a good reason why didn't we just go with a simple "WRAP_ARRAY" ? > > > > I don’t have a particular preference. > If the consensus is that WRAP_ARRAY is better than FORCE_ARRAY, we can > change it accordingly.
+0.5 for WRAP_ARRAY > > > -- > jian > https://www.enterprisedb.com/ -- Regards Junwang Zhao
