From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Mike Fowler <mike(at)mlfowler(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch |
Date: | 2010-08-06 20:50:16 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTim7Xm_06-OiGXiU+r+zXUKV7gaVZcXuMRvgmXUv@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/8/6 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
> On fre, 2010-08-06 at 21:31 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> It must not be a function. Just I missing any tool that helps with
>> complex structured data. This proposed kind functions has one
>> advantage - there isn't necessary any change in parser. Yes, I can use
>> a pair of arrays, I can use a one array with seq name, value, I can
>> use a custom parser. But nothing from these offers a comfort or
>> readability for example a Perl's hash tables.
>
> Maybe you should just use PL/XSLT. :-)
>
:)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-08-06 20:52:17 | Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-08-06 20:49:07 | Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch |