On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 07:54 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-03-01 at 18:22 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > > >> I think the XML type needs to conform to the SQL/XML spec. However, we > >> are trying to apply XPath, which has a different data model, to that > >> type - hence the impedance mismatch. > >> > >> I think that the best we can do (for 8.4, having fixed 8.3 as best we > >> can without adversely changing behaviour) is to throw the > >> responsibility > >> for ensuring that the XML passed to the function is an XML document > >> back on the programmer. Anything else, especially any mangling of the > >> XPath > >> expression, presents a very real danger of breaking on correct input. > >> > > > > Can we provide a single function to bridge the gap between fragment and > > document? It will be clearer to do this than to see various forms of > > appending/munging, even if that function is a simple wrapper around an > > append. > > > > > > I have no objection to providing an *extra* function that explicitly > wraps non-documents and prefixes the xpath expression in that case, and > is documented to have limitations. But I don't think we can provide a > single function that always "does the right thing", especially when that > is so ill-defined in the case of fragments.
Is it just that in you _can't_ use Xpath on fragments, and you _need_ to pass full documents to Xpath ? At least this is my reading of Xpath standard. > 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