From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: xmlconcat (was 9.0 release notes done) |
Date: | 2010-03-22 21:31:31 |
Message-ID: | 1269293491.14588.13.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On sön, 2010-03-21 at 13:07 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Yeah, maybe. According to
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1/level-one-core.html> the only
> legal child of an XML Document node that is not also a legal child of a
> DocumentFragment node is a DocumentType node. So we could probably just
> look for one of those in each argument node and strip it out. That
> should be fairly lightweight in the common case where it's not present -
> we'd just be searching for a fixed string. Removing it if found would be
> more complex. We'd have to parse the node to remove it, since a legal
> DocumentType node string could appear legally inside a CDATA node.
According to the SQL/XML standard, the document type declaration should
apparently be stripped when doing a concatenation. (This makes sense
because the result of a concatenation can never be valid according to a
DTD.)
But if we are not comfortable about being able to do that safely, I
would be OK with just raising an error if a concatenation is attempted
where one value contains a DTD. The impact in practice should be low.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2010-03-22 21:35:00 | Re: An idle thought |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-03-22 21:23:43 | Re: proposal: more practical view on function's source code |