Re: xpath not a good replacement for xpath_string

pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com wrote:
>
> Well, the API is there, it is where, I guess, PostgreSQL is going, but I
> think, philosophically, the API needs to see the XML contained within SQL
> columns as being able to represent variable and optional columns in object
> oriented environments easily. The harder it is to use a feature, the less
> usable the feature is.
>
> Do you disagree?
>
>

There is always a degree of tradeoff between power and ease of use. But
whether or not you like the way the xpath() function now works hardly
matters - we're not going to change the behaviour of an existing
function except to fix a bug.

As I said upthread, I think we can easily provide some extra convenience
functions which will do what you want. The only thing I was really
arguing about was the function name for such a gadget.

cheers

andrew