| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: xpath processing brain dead |
| Date: | 2009-02-28 20:37:52 |
| Message-ID: | 1235853472.12355.3.camel@huvostro |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 22:55 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Some of the functions, including some specified in the standard, produce
> >> fragments. That's why we have the 'IS DOCUMENT' test.
> >>
> >
> > But then you could use xmlfragments as the functions return type, no ?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Not in the case of xpath, no.
single xml document is a sub-case of xmlforest, so xmlforest should be
allowed as return type, no ?
> There is a very complete standard for the Xpath data model,
> and we need to adhere to it.
Is declaring a single all-covering "xml" data type the best or even the
only way to adhere ?
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
--
Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability
Services, Consulting and Training
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-02-28 20:38:17 | Re: Synchronous replication & Hot standby patches |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-02-28 18:33:05 | Re: xpath processing brain dead |