| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Mike Fowler <mike(at)mlfowler(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch |
| Date: | 2010-08-06 22:01:58 |
| Message-ID: | 11747.1281132118@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On fre, 2010-08-06 at 13:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 2. I'm not sure whether we ought to auto-single-quote the values.
>> If we don't, how hard is it for users to properly quote nonconstant
>> parameter values? (Will quote_literal work, or are the quoting rules
>> different for libxslt?) If we do, are we giving up functionality
>> someone cares about?
> Not every parameter is a string.
So I gather, but what else is there, and do we actually want to expose
the other alternatives in xslt_process()?
If we don't auto-quote, we need to provide some sort of quote_xslt()
function that will apply the appropriate quoting/escaping to deal
with an arbitrary string value.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-06 22:13:31 | Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-08-06 21:46:52 | Re: review: xml_is_well_formed |