Re: The two "XML Fixes" patches still in need of review

From: Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Markus Winand <markus(dot)winand(at)winand(dot)at>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: The two "XML Fixes" patches still in need of review
Date: 2019-03-23 22:20:49
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 03/23/19 17:05, Tom Lane wrote:

> Just to update this thread --- per the other thread at
> I've now pushed a somewhat-adjusted version of the XML-content fix
> patch. The documentation patch needs some small rebasing to apply
> after that one instead of before it.

Will do.

> Perhaps it'd make sense under the XML section in datatype.sgml,
> but I think I might lean to making it a new section in Appendix D
> (SQL Conformance).

Sounds like the option (4) I proposed back in [1]. I suppose it won't
be much trouble to move.

> I'm not going to touch the documentation patch myself; I don't know
> enough about XML to review it competently.

I would be happy even to see it reviewed for style, and if anybody's
willing to look at the technical content even if not feeling ideally
prepared, I'd be happy to respond or give references for any points
in question.

It does fix a number of actual bugs in the existing documentation, so
while it would be ideal to apply a higher standard of technical review
to this patch, it'd be less ideal to have existing buggy doc lingering on
because nobody feels up to reviewing at that ideal higher standard.



In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-03-23 22:22:39 Re: Fix XML handling with DOCTYPE
Previous Message legrand legrand 2019-03-23 22:08:05 RE: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)