Where are we on this? Peter thought the consistency makes sense, but if we can provide functionality that doesn't require libxml, why not do it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote: > On 2/21/07, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think it would be better that leaving --with-libxml out (i.e. > > compiling without libxml2 support) would only disable those parts in XML > > functionality that require libxml2 for their implementation; the rest of > > the stuff should be compiled in regardless of the setting. > > > > Is this not what is done currently? > > > > The thing is that some functions of "XML support" are based on > libxml2, some are not. libxml2 contains useful routines to deal with > XML data. Now we have: XMLELEMENT uses such routines and XMLPI > doesn't. Actually, all SQL/XML publishing function could be > implemented w/o libxml2 -- but it's more convenient to use those > routines in some cases... And there is no guarantee that functions > that don't currently use libxml2 will not use them in future. > > What I want to propose is just simplification -- consider all XML > stuff as one package, including XML type, SQL/XML publishing, XPath > funcs, additional publishing functions recently added by Peter (btw, > who knows -- maybe libxml2 will help to improve them somehow in > future?), etc. > > -- > Best regards, > Nikolay > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match