Mike Fowler writes:
> On 06/08/10 20:55, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On fre, 2010-08-06 at 09:04 +0100, Mike Fowler wrote:
>>> If the patch is to be committed, does it make sense for me to refine
>>> it such that it uses the new xpath internal function you extracted in
>>> the xmlexists patch?
>>
On 06/08/10 20:55, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On fre, 2010-08-06 at 09:04 +0100, Mike Fowler wrote:
If the patch is to be committed, does it make sense for me to refine
it such that it uses the new xpath internal function you extracted in
the xmlexists patch?
Yes, you can probably shrink this pat
On fre, 2010-08-06 at 09:04 +0100, Mike Fowler wrote:
> If the patch is to be committed, does it make sense for me to refine
> it such that it uses the new xpath internal function you extracted in
> the xmlexists patch?
Yes, you can probably shrink this patch down to about 20 lines.
--
Sent via
On 06/08/10 05:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tis, 2010-07-27 at 16:33 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
* Do we already have it?
Not really. There are kludges to accomplish these things, but
they're available mostly in the sense that a general-purpose
language allows you to write
On tis, 2010-07-27 at 16:33 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> * Do we already have it?
>
> Not really. There are kludges to accomplish these things, but
> they're available mostly in the sense that a general-purpose
> language allows you to write code to do anything a Turing machine
>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:33 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> Minor quibble with the regression tests: should we be using
> dollar quotes in things like this? Doubled-up quote marks:
>
> SELECT xpath_exists('//town[text() =
> ''Cwmbran'']','Bidford-on-AvonCwmbranBristol'::xml);
>
>
