| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Mike Fowler <mike(at)mlfowler(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: review: xml_is_well_formed |
| Date: | 2010-08-11 20:27:05 |
| Message-ID: | 11256.1281558425@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> There's also the fact that it would probably end up parsing the data
>> twice. Given xmloption, I'm inclined to think Tom has it right:
>> provided xml_is_well_formed() that follows xmloption, plus a specific
>> version for each of content and document.
> Another reasonable option here would be to forget about having
> xml_is_well_formed() per se and ONLY offer
> xml_is_well_formed_content() and xml_is_well_formed_document().
We already have xml_is_well_formed(); just dropping it doesn't seem like
a helpful choice.
> As a project management note, this CommitFest is over in 4 days, so
> unless we have a new version of this patch real soon now we need to
> defer it to the September 15th CommitFest
Yes. Mike, are you expecting to submit a new version before the end of
the week?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-08-11 20:38:42 | Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2010-08-11 20:21:37 | Re: string_to_array with an empty input string |