On 3/23/07, Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Would it be better to use some more unlikely name for the dummy root
> element used to process fragments than ?
Why do we even need to support xpath on fragments?
Why not? I find it useful and convenient.
--
Be
On 4/4/07, Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2007 14:43 schrieb Nikolay Samokhvalov:
> > Why do we even need to support xpath on fragments?
>
> Why not? I find it useful and convenient.
Well, rather than inventing bogus root wrapper elements, why not let users
ca
Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2007 14:43 schrieb Nikolay Samokhvalov:
> > Why do we even need to support xpath on fragments?
>
> Why not? I find it useful and convenient.
Well, rather than inventing bogus root wrapper elements, why not let users
call xmlelement() to produce the wrapper element themselves
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Would it be better to use some more unlikely name for the dummy root
> element used to process fragments than ?
Why do we even need to support xpath on fragments?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)-
Applying newest version of this patch now; still needs documentation.
---
Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Nikolay Samokhvalov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/4/07, Nikolay Samokhvalov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ?
Perhaps even something in a special namespace?
I did think about it, but I didn't find
On 3/5/07, Nikolay Samokhvalov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/4/07, Nikolay Samokhvalov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll fix these issues and extend the patch with resgression tests and
> docs for xpath_array(). I'll resubmit it very soon.
Here is a new version of the patch. I didn't change an
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 ?
Perhaps even something in a special namespace?
I did thi
Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
What about it? W/o this not large patch XML functionality in 8.3 will
be weak...
Will it be accepted?
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 ?
Perhap
What about it? W/o this not large patch XML functionality in 8.3 will be weak...
Will it be accepted?
On 3/5/07, Nikolay Samokhvalov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/4/07, Nikolay Samokhvalov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll fix these issues and extend the patch with resgression tests and
> docs
10 matches
Mail list logo
