Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch

Tom Lane wrote:
> Mike Fowler <mike(at)mlfowler(dot)com> writes:
> > On 06/08/10 17:50, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> attached updated patch with regression test
>
> > Bravely ignoring the quotation/varidic/<favourite_scheme_here>
> > conversations, I've taken a look at the patch as is. Thanks to Tom's
> > input I can now correctly drive the function. I can also report that
> > code is now behaving in the expected way.
>
> I've gone ahead and applied this patch, since the subsequent discussion
> seemed to be getting *extremely* far afield from the expressed intent
> of the patch, and nobody had pointed out a reason not to fix the
> number-of-parameters limitation.
>
> I think we have a few TODO items here:
>
> * Invent ... and document ... an API that permits safe assembly of a
> parameter list from non-constant (and perhaps untrustworthy) values.
>
> * Fix xslt_process' failure to report (some?) errors detected by libxslt.
>
> * Move the functionality to a less deprecated place.
>
> None of these are within the scope of the current patch though.

Should any of these be added to our TODO list under XML?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +