From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
Cc: | Ryan Lambert <ryan(at)rustprooflabs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fix XML handling with DOCTYPE |
Date: | 2019-03-17 17:16:31 |
Message-ID: | 31664.1552842991@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> writes:
> What I was doing in the patch is the reverse: parsing with the expectation
> of CONTENT to see if a DTD gets tripped over. It isn't allowed for an
> element to precede a DTD, so that approach can be expected to fail fast
> if the other branch needs to be taken.
Ah, right. I don't have any problem with trying the CONTENT approach
before the DOCUMENT approach rather than vice-versa. What I was concerned
about was adding a lot of assumptions about exactly how libxml would
report the failure. IMO a maximally-safe patch would just rearrange
things we're already doing without adding new things.
> But a quick pre-scan for the same thing would have the same property,
> without the libxml dependencies that bother you here. Watch this space.
Do we need a pre-scan at all?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2019-03-17 17:17:50 | Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2019-03-17 17:14:24 | Re: jsonpath |