Re: review: xml_is_well_formed

On 11/08/10 21:27, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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?
>

Yes and here it is, apologies for the delay. I have re-implemented
xml_is_well_formed such that it is sensitive to the XMLOPTION. The
additional _document and _content methods are now present. Tests and
documentation adjusted to suit.

Regards,

--
Mike Fowler
Registered Linux user: 379787