Re: PostgreSQL vs SQL/XML Standards

Hi

so 26. 1. 2019 v 4:25 odesílatel Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>
napsal:

> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
> make installcheck-world: tested, passed
> Implements feature: tested, passed
> Spec compliant: not tested
> Documentation: not tested
>

maybe more simple will be work with original commitfest subscriptions. I
can do review of xmltable-xmlexists-passing-mechanisms-2.patch.
Documentation review will be harder - I am not a native speaker and I have
not a necessary knowledges of XQuery (probably only you have this
knowledge).

>
> As the reporter of the issues raised in this email thread, I've reviewed
> the first patch
> and contributed the second and third.
>
> WHAT THE PATCHES DO:
>
> xmltable-xpath-result-processing-bugfix-5.patch contains code changes
> correcting
> a subset of the issues that were raised in this email thread.
>
> xmltable-xmlexists-passing-mechanisms-2.patch adjusts the grammar to allow
> the XML
> parameter passing mechanism BY VALUE as well as BY REF. Both are ignored,
> but
> formerly BY VALUE was a syntax error, which was unintuitive considering
> that BY VALUE
> is the passing mechanism PostgreSQL implements (XML node identities are
> not preserved).
>
> xml-functions-type-docfix-1.patch conforms the documentation to reflect
> the changes in
> this patch set and the limitations identified in this thread.
>
> WHAT I HAVE REVIEWED:
>
> I have applied all three patches over 18c0da8 and confirmed that
> installcheck-world passes
> and that the code changes resolve the issues they set out to resolve.
>
> I've made no entry for "spec compliant" because the question is moot; the
> spec is written
> in terms of the XQuery language, types, and concepts, and these facilities
> in PG are
> implemented on XPath 1.0, which doesn't have those. But the changes in
> this patch set
> do make the PG behaviors more, well, closely analogous to the way the spec
> compliant
> functions would behave.
>
> WHAT I HAVE NOT REVIEWED:
>
> The passing-mechanisms and docfix patches are my own work, so there should
> be another
> reviewer who is not me. I've looked closely at the technical, SQL/XML
> behavior aspects already,
> but a reviewer with an eye for documentation would be welcome.
>
> I'll venture my opinion that this is ready-for-committer to the extent of
> my own review, but will
> leave the status at needs-review for a not-me reviewer to update.