Re: [PATCH] Add XMLText function (SQL/XML X038)

From: Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>
To: Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add XMLText function (SQL/XML X038)
Date: 2023-08-25 14:49:50
Message-ID: 00ec9799-aaa6-9acf-ccad-77bb237a8f8f@postgresfriends.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 8/25/23 14:42, Jim Jones wrote:
> Hi Vik
>
> Thanks for reviewing my patch!

Thank you for writing it!

> On 25.08.23 12:05, Vik Fearing wrote:
>> I am replying to this email, but my comments are based on the v2 patch.
>>
>> Thank you for working on this, and I think this is a valuable
>> addition. However, I have two issues with it.
>>
>> 1) There seems to be several spurious blank lines added that I do not
>> think are warranted.
>
> I tried to copy the aesthetics of other functions, but it seems I failed
> :) I removed a few blank lines. I hope it's fine now.

I am talking specifically about this:

@@ -505,6 +506,10 @@ xmlcomment(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
appendStringInfoText(&buf, arg);
appendStringInfoString(&buf, "-->");

+
+
+
+
PG_RETURN_XML_P(stringinfo_to_xmltype(&buf));
#else
NO_XML_SUPPORT();

>> 2) This patch does nothing to address the <XML returning clause> so we
>> can't claim to implement X038 without a disclaimer.  Upon further
>> review, the same is true of XMLCOMMENT() so maybe that is okay for
>> this patch, and a more comprehensive patch for our xml features is
>> necessary.
>
> If we decide to not address this point here, I can take a look at it and
> work in a separated patch.

I do not think this should be addressed in this patch because there are
quite a lot of functions that need to handle this.
--
Vik Fearing

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Imseih (AWS), Sami 2023-08-25 15:01:40 Re: pg_stat_get_backend_subxact() and backend IDs?
Previous Message Andres Freund 2023-08-25 13:57:33 Re: initdb caching during tests