Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: xpath not a good replacement for xpath_string

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, PostgreSQL <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: xpath not a good replacement for xpath_string
Date: 2009-07-28 20:19:58
Message-ID: 4A6F5D6E.2080309@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>  
>   
>> This is really a usage question, which doesn't belong on -hackers.
>>     
>  
> Perhaps this sentence in the 8.4.0 docs should be amended or removed?:
>  
> "If you find that some of the functionality of this module is not
> available in an adequate form with the newer API, please explain your
> issue to pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org so that the deficiency can be
> addressed."
>  
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/xml2.html#AEN115231
>  
>
>   

Well, yes, maybe I should withdraw my comment, although in fact the 
desired functionality is present, as both Mike Rylander and I noted. You 
just need to use the text() function to get the contents of the node, 
and an array subscript to pull it out of the result array.

The really annoying thing we are missing is not xpath functionality, but 
XSLT processing.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2009-07-28 20:29:16
Subject: Re: xpath not a good replacement for xpath_string
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-07-28 20:08:58
Subject: Deferred uniqueness versus foreign keys

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group