Re: voting to the xslt_process() need

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Padua Krauss <ppkrauss(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: voting to the xslt_process() need
Date: 2011-11-07 18:00:34
Message-ID: 28508.1320688834@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Please also see earlier discussions of these items in the mailing list.

Yes. It's very unlikely that we'll accept a patch that just moves
xslt_process into core without doing anything about its definitional
and implementation shortcomings. See for instance

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-02/msg01878.php

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-11-07 18:05:11 Re: synchronous commit vs. hint bits
Previous Message J Smith 2011-11-07 17:49:51 Re: unaccent extension missing some accents