On Feb 27, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Well, that's why I asked --- if it's going to be a huge chunk of code, > then I agree this is the wrong path to pursue. However, I do feel that > libxml pretty well sucks, so if we could replace it with a relatively > small amount of code, that might be the right thing to do.
I think that XML parsers must be hard to get really right, because of all those I've used in Perl, XML::LibXML is far and away the best. Its docs suck, but it does the work really well. > No, because the xpath stuff is fundamentally broken, and nobody seems to > know how to make libxslt do what we actually need. See the open bugs > on the TODO list. XPath is broken? I use it heavily in the Perl module Test::XPath and now, in PostgreSQL, with my explanation extension. http://github.com/theory/explanation/ Is this something I need to worry about? Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
