From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Nikolay Samokhvalov <nikolay(at)samokhvalov(dot)com> |
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 15:56:30 |
Message-ID: | 45FC0FAE.5050204@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> 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?
>
If you are sure that it won't cause a problem then I think it's ok to
leave it, as long as there is a comment in the code that says why we are
sure it's ok.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-17 16:10:06 | Re: Bug in UTF8-Validation Code? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-17 15:53:28 | Re: Bison 2.1 on win32 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Grzegorz Jaskiewicz | 2007-03-17 21:14:35 | Re: [PATCHES] Bitmapscan changes |
Previous Message | Nikolay Samokhvalov | 2007-03-17 15:46:28 | Re: [PATCHES] xpath_array with namespaces support |