From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tomáš Pospíšil <killteck(at)seznam(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, chmelab(at)gmail(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: PROPOSAL of xmlvalidate |
Date: | 2010-11-29 17:53:18 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTik9zZ=6O82cWVyO1GDxV8k_UKThWOb9xQvewybV@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/11/29 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 2010/11/29 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Tomáš Pospíšil <killteck(at)seznam(dot)cz> wrote:
>>>> I have idea of creating system table for holding DTDs, XSDs, Relax-NGs (similar as on ORACLE).
>>>>
>>>> Is that good idea?
>>>
>>> I doubt it. Why would we want to do that?
>>
>> If I understand, it allows a local copy of DTD, .. so then is possible
>> to provide a fast DTD checking.
>
> But that could equally well be stored in a user table rather than a
> system table.
>
yes or now. If we have a some integrated rule for xml validation, but
I can't to imagine a dependency on custom table. More - system table
can be better cached. So it depends on level of integration to system.
Probably it needs a deep discuss about SQL/XML and other questions. It
can mean a not optional dependency on libxml2.
Pavel
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-11-29 17:56:03 | Re: PROPOSAL of xmlvalidate |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-29 17:50:12 | Re: profiling connection overhead |