On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 16:37 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Hannu Krosing wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:51 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > > >>> What I have proposed for 8.3 should not break a single case that currently > >>> behaves usefully. If anyone has a counter-example please show it. > >>> > >>> What I have proposed for 8.4 possibly would break current "useful" > >>> behaviour > >>> (FSVO "useful"), but should be done anyway on correctness grounds. > >>> > >> I dunno, aren't XML document fragments sort of a pretty common case? > >> > > > > I'd rather argue that xml datatype should not even accept anything but > > complete xml documents. Same as int field does not accept int[]. > > > > Or maybe we rather need separate xmldocument and xmlforest/xmlfragments > > types in next releases and leave the "base" xml as it is but deprecated > > due to inability to fix it without breaking backwards compatibility. > > > > > > Some of the functions, including some specified in the standard, produce > fragments. That's why we have the 'IS DOCUMENT' test.
But then you could use xmlfragments as the functions return type, no ? Does tha standard require that the same field type must store both documents and fragments ? > You can also force validation as a document by saying SET XML OPTION > DOCUMENT; > > cheers > > andrew -- Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability Services, Consulting and Training -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
