Re: XMLDocument (SQL/XML X030)

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>
Cc: Chapman Flack <jcflack(at)acm(dot)org>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: XMLDocument (SQL/XML X030)
Date: 2025-01-23 15:14:35
Message-ID: CAFj8pRAWFoc=6k4OYo30h3eqp7dPOKYYG5MTM_tre0f6bbBQ2w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi

čt 23. 1. 2025 v 16:06 odesílatel Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>
napsal:

> Hi
>
> On 23.01.25 07:50, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > I think so in this form (just forward input to output) I have no
> > objection.
> >
> > There is a benefit with a) possible zero work with migration from db2,
> > b) nobody needs to repeat a work which is a correct implementation of
> > XMLDOCUMENT function.
> >
> > Maybe opened question can be implementation like classic scalar
> > function or via XmlExpr
> >
> > In this moment I prefer to use XmlExpr from consistency reasons
>
>
> To keep it consistent with the existing code, I think this function is
> in the right place. There are similar functions in xml.c, e.g.
> xmltotext, texttoxml.
>

These functions are cast functions - they should be V1 functions only -
casting cannot work with pseudo functions.

But it is true, so xmlcomment is not a pseudo function either. So minimally
this function is precedent, so there is not strong dependency on XmlExp,
which I expected.

> I updated the function comment and commit message (v4 attached) to make
> things clearer.
>
> Since the status of this patch is waiting on author, is there anything
> else I should take a look / improve?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best regards,Jim
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2025-01-23 15:31:09 Re: SQL:2011 application time
Previous Message Japin Li 2025-01-23 15:13:39 Re: Compression of bigger WAL records