From: | "Nikolay Samokhvalov" <nikolay(at)samokhvalov(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | PGSQL-Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] xpath_array with namespaces support |
Date: | 2007-03-17 15:46:28 |
Message-ID: | e431ff4c0703170846i6d9596afnde38c79c87fda4ea@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On 3/17/07, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> In principle I am in favor of the patch.
>
> Would it be better to use some more unlikely name for the dummy root
> element used to process fragments than <x> ?
>
> Perhaps even something in a special namespace?
>
I did think about it, but I didn't find any difficulties with simple
<x>...</x>. The thing is that regardless the element name we have
corresponding shift in XPath epression -- so, there cannot be any
problem from my point of view... But maybe I don't see something and
it's better to avoid _possible_ problem. It depends on PostgreSQL code
style itself -- what is the best approach in such cases? To avoid
unknown possible difficulties or to be clear?
--
Best regards,
Nikolay
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-17 15:53:28 | Re: Bison 2.1 on win32 |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-03-17 15:46:01 | Re: Bug in UTF8-Validation Code? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-03-17 15:56:30 | Re: [PATCHES] xpath_array with namespaces support |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-17 15:36:29 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add GUC temp_tablespaces to provide a default location for |