JSON docs: RFC7159 is now superceded
Hackorum builds and tests every patch posted to the lists, not only commitfest submissions. This is Hackorum's own CI rather than the PostgreSQL project's, and it is still under testing - please report anything that looks wrong.
You can run a PostgreSQL built from this patch straight from Docker, with no checkout and no build:
docker run --rm -p 5432:5432 ghcr.io/hackorum-dev/postgres-patch:t45805psql -h localhost -U postgresBuilt from patchset v1 (message #1), July 27, 2026 at 02:52 PM.
Every patchset is also pushed to a branch of our PostgreSQL fork, so you can check out the same tree CI built. Without a PostgreSQL checkout:
git clone --branch t45805_1 https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitIn a checkout you already have, add the fork once:
git remote add hackorum https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitthen, for this patchset and every later one:
git fetch hackorum t45805_1 && git checkout t45805_1Patchset v1 (message #1) is on t45805_1
Minor doc patch to replace with latest RFC number
Intended for PG15
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com> writes:
Minor doc patch to replace with latest RFC number
Hmm, I'm a bit disinclined to claim compliance with a new RFC
sight unseen. What were the changes?
regards, tom lane
On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 at 14:53, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com> writes:
Minor doc patch to replace with latest RFC number
Hmm, I'm a bit disinclined to claim compliance with a new RFC
sight unseen. What were the changes?
I checked... so I should have mentioned this before
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8259#appendix-A
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
On 2022-04-13 We 09:38, Simon Riggs wrote:
Minor doc patch to replace with latest RFC number
Intended for PG15
Idea is fine, but
- data, as specified in <ulink
url="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159">RFC
- 7159</ulink>. Such data can also be stored as <type>text</type>, but
+ data, as specified in <ulink
url="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8259">RFC
+ 8259</ulink>, which supercedes the earlier <acronym>RFC</acronym> 7159.
+ Such data can also be stored as <type>text</type>, butDo we need to mention the obsoleting of RFC7159? Anyone who cares enough
can see that by looking at the RFC - it mentions what it obsoletes.
I haven't checked that anything that changed in RFC8259 affects us. I
doubt it would but I guess we should double check.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com