| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2010-03-21 15:29:01 |
| Message-ID: | 22011.1269185341@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items
> I have just been looking at the xmlconcat bug on that list. I can't
> think of any better solution than parsing the resulting string to make
> sure it is well-formed before we return,
That might be a reasonable thing to do as a safety check, but I can't
escape the feeling that what this fundamentally is is a data typing
error, traceable to the lack of differentiation between xml documents
and xml fragments. Is there a way to attack it based on saying that the
inputs can't be documents, or stripping the document overhead if they are?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-03-21 15:42:46 | Re: proposal: more practical view on function's source code |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-03-21 14:52:08 | Re: proposal: more practical view on function's source code |