Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
On 3/17/07, Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
