Re: Question about xmloption and pg_restore

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stefan Fercot <stefan(dot)fercot(at)dalibo(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Question about xmloption and pg_restore
Date: 2018-10-25 09:02:13
Message-ID: 22271.1540458133@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> writes:
> On 05/18/18 15:50, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Hmm. I thought that xmloption = 'content' was supposed to be strictly
>> more permissive than xmloption = 'document'.

> In the spirit of not leaving a good question hanging, this turns out to be
> a difference between the 2003 SQL/XML standard (which PG implements) and
> the later versions, which changed the data model so there really is a
> containment relationship between 'content' and 'document'.
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_vs_SQL/XML_Standards#XML_OPTION

See also
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/153478795159.1302.9617586466368699403%40wrigleys.postgresql.org

It's odd that people are just reporting this now when it's been like that
for quite a few years, but anyway we've got a problem. Sounds like maybe
adopting the later standards' definitions would fix it? Although I have
no idea how complicated that'd be.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais 2018-10-25 09:15:51 Re: Using old master as new replica after clean switchover
Previous Message Shay Rojansky 2018-10-25 09:01:20 Re: UNLISTEN, DISCARD ALL and readonly standby