| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomáš Pospíšil <killteck(at)seznam(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, chmelab(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: PROPOSAL of xmlvalidate |
| Date: | 2010-11-29 17:56:03 |
| Message-ID: | 4CF3E933.9050407@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/29/2010 12:36 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Pavel Stehule<pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 2010/11/29 Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Tomáš Pospíšil<killteck(at)seznam(dot)cz> wrote:
>>>> I have idea of creating system table for holding DTDs, XSDs, Relax-NGs (similar as on ORACLE).
>>>>
>>>> Is that good idea?
>>> I doubt it. Why would we want to do that?
>> If I understand, it allows a local copy of DTD, .. so then is possible
>> to provide a fast DTD checking.
> But that could equally well be stored in a user table rather than a
> system table.
>
Yeah. The trouble is you won't be able to use that reliably in a check
constraint, which I imagine is one of the principal intended purposes.
I'm not sure how we should go about that.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-29 18:10:07 | Re: profiling connection overhead |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-11-29 17:53:18 | Re: PROPOSAL of xmlvalidate |