| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Anton <antonin(dot)houska(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Native XML |
| Date: | 2011-02-27 19:37:35 |
| Message-ID: | 5700016C-4D5C-4277-828D-90992949C045@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Feb 27, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, that's why I asked --- if it's going to be a huge chunk of code,
> then I agree this is the wrong path to pursue. However, I do feel that
> libxml pretty well sucks, so if we could replace it with a relatively
> small amount of code, that might be the right thing to do.
I think that XML parsers must be hard to get really right, because of all those I've used in Perl, XML::LibXML is far and away the best. Its docs suck, but it does the work really well.
> No, because the xpath stuff is fundamentally broken, and nobody seems to
> know how to make libxslt do what we actually need. See the open bugs
> on the TODO list.
XPath is broken? I use it heavily in the Perl module Test::XPath and now, in PostgreSQL, with my explanation extension.
http://github.com/theory/explanation/
Is this something I need to worry about?
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-27 19:43:15 | Re: Native XML |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-27 19:23:13 | Re: Native XML |