On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> wrote: ...
> JSON Path is not expressive enough (last I looked) and can be mapped > onto jq if need be anyways. > Hi Nico, Could you please clarify what you mean by "not expressive enough"? I ask because I've been struggling to identify clear requirements for the json-path functionality I'm trying to provide. It sounds like perhaps you have something concrete in mind. Since I myself have no need currently for this functionality, I'm left guessing about hypothetical users of it. My current mental model is: (a) Backend web developers. AFAICT, their community has mostly settled on the syntax/semantics proposed by Stefan Groessner. It would probably be unkind for PG's implementation to deviate from that without a good reason. (b) PG hackers who will eventually implement the ISO SQL standard operators. In the standards-committee meeting notes I've seen, it seemed to me that they were planning to define some operators in terms of json-path expression. So it would probably be good if whatever json-path function I implement turns out to comply with that standard, so that the PG-hackers can use it as a building block for their work. (c) Pavel. (I'm still somewhat unclear on what has him interested in this, and what his specific constraints are.) - Christian
