| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: xpath processing brain dead |
| Date: | 2009-03-02 14:12:37 |
| Message-ID: | 1236003157.7911.11.camel@huvostro |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 15:25 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > Is it just that in you _can't_ use Xpath on fragments, and you _need_ to
> > pass full documents to Xpath ?
> >
> > At least this is my reading of Xpath standard.
>
> It is easy to read the XPath standard that way, because the concept of
> fragments is not defined outside of SQL/XML, and is therefore unknown to
> the XPath standard.
How is the opposite - Does SQL/XML specify Xpath usage for XML(SEQUENCE)
and XML(CONTENT) ?
> The question at hand is rather whether we can
> usefully adapt it.
This sounds like trying to adapt integer arithmetic to
lists-of-integers.
Even for simple things like addition, there are several ways of doing it
[1,2,3] + [1,1,1] = [1,2,3,1,1,1]
[1,2,3] + [1,1,1] = [2,3,4]
[1,2,3] + [1,1,1] = [[1,2,3],[1,1,1]]
all seem possible and "logical"
--
Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability
Services, Consulting and Training
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Saito | 2009-03-02 14:44:03 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Redefine _() to dgettext() instead of gettext() so that it uses |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-03-02 13:38:13 | Re: xpath processing brain dead |