Re: XML schemas and PG column names

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: XML schemas and PG column names
Date: 2009-12-12 23:35:00
Message-ID: 4B2428A4.8090202@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On lör, 2009-12-12 at 11:51 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> It is certainly legal per XML and XSD specs, and the SQL/XML spec has
>> annotations using appinfo elements. It would be rather surprising if
>> the
>> SQL/XML spec forbade annotations such as I propose. The spec is
>> mind-bogglingly impenetrable, though. Perhaps Peter or Nicholas might
>> know.
>>
>
> I think we can of course add our own annotations. It would be good to
> go through the SQL/XML standard document and check what style they use
> for their annotations so that we can structure and name ours similarly
> and have room for future work, in case someone also wants annotations
> for table names, schema names, etc. (Or was that part of your project as
> well?)
>
>

Well, the standard has an element specifically for annotations
concerning certain objects: sqlxml:sqlname. However, I am not sure if it
can be used in this context. Can you try reading the standard
(<http://www.sqlx.org/SQL-XML-documents/5FCD-14-XML-2004-07.pdf>) and
tell me? :-) If it's not comprehended by the standard then we should at
least use a different namespace, and probably a different element name.
The style can be made to match, though.

I certainly think we could do more of this, although the column names
are what matter to me right now. We can also do it bit by bit.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2009-12-13 00:11:13 Re: Row-Level Security
Previous Message KaiGai Kohei 2009-12-12 23:30:25 Re: Row-Level Security