On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I think we need to either (1) fix the bugs and update the
>>> documentation to remove the statement that this will be removed or (2)
>>> actually remove it.
>> I agree it's a mess but I don't think just abandoning the functionality
>> is a good idea.
> Yeah, we can't really remove it until we have a plausible substitute for
> the xpath_table functionality. This is in the TODO list ...
My feeling is that if it's as flakey and unreliable as it currently
is, we shouldn't ship it. Removing it from CVS doesn't mean "you
can't use this any more"; this is open source. It just means people
will have to go and get an old copy out of CVS and presumably in so
doing they will be aware that we've removed it for a reason. We have
a well-deserved reputation for quality and I would like to see us
Is anyone going to try to fix this for 9.0?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2010-02-01 18:29:10|
|Subject: Re: plpython3|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-02-01 18:23:33|
|Subject: Re: contrib\xml2 package's xpath_table function in PostgreSQL|