> What are your thoughts on first starting with support for JSONC? It has > no implications other than comments (single-line and multi-line) and > trailing commas. We could collaborate and commit that, and then > subsequently work on JSON5 support. It should enable the JSON5 support > patches to be even smaller than what you posted already.
I also sent my patchset[1] for JSONC/JSON5. I wanted to organize it into smaller patches and stress test it before sharing, but I think it's in a good enough shape now. My logic was similar: the first patch in the series is the JSONC support, as that's a feature usable on its own. > Do we want to support JSONC/JSON5 in the incremental parser? My > inclination is yes so the parsers are consistent in what they support. I included it for completeness, but the incremental parser has no real user other than the tests, and it's complex. A patch without that would be significantly smaller. Most (nearly all) of the corner case issues I identified while testing the patch were also in that. [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAN4CZFP5dvO4sij414YYG%2B4Hghf3M5m2oPiyR_vNgRj3vhQ_0Q%40mail.gmail.com
