Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> this patch ensures independency datetime fields on current datestyle
>>> setting. Add new internal datestyle USE_XSD_DATESTYLE. It's almoust
>>> same to USE_ISO_DATESTYLE. Differences are for timestamp:
>>> ISO: yyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss
>>> XSD: yyyy-mm-ddThh24:mi:ss
>> I agree that we should have some support for XSD date style so that
>> we can produce validatable XML documents. In fact I had to make just
>> such a transformation on data pulled from Postgres recently in
>> application code to get a document to validate.
>> However, I have not seen this topic discussed on -hackers. The way we
>> work is that ideas about features should be discussed there before
>> you submit a patch. For one thing, -hackers has a somewhat wider set
>> of readers than -patches. Also, you might well get good ideas about
>> any likely difficulties. Just lobbing a patch for an undiscussed
>> feature over the wall like this is not good practice. You should get
>> signoff on the idea before you start coding, even for fairly small
> I am sorry. I reported this two times before. This patch is related
> only for xml functionality. XSD datestyle is only one internal
> constant. There are no new datestyle (I hope so can be usefull). My
> patch is small bug fix like Peter's patch for boolean datatype.
> Generating invalid xml is bug not feature, no?
> Primary I had to send this patch to Peter.
I'm not sure that we are actually guaranteeing anything about XML
validity against any schema or DTD, are we?
If there was previous email I apologise, as I didn't find it when I
looked. Perhaps in such cases you could include a ref to the archive URL.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2007-02-20 16:04:36|
|Subject: Re: correct format for date, time, timestamp for XML functionality|
|Previous:||From: mark||Date: 2007-02-20 15:47:43|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] HOT WIP Patch - version 2|