Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Tom Lane wrote: > Takahiro Itagaki writes: > > Can we take the patch for 9.0? The bug is registered as an open item: > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items > > Given that there are still problems with it, applying the patch for 9.0 > would mean changing the behavior of x

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Takahiro Itagaki writes: > Can we take the patch for 9.0? The bug is registered as an open item: > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items Given that there are still problems with it, applying the patch for 9.0 would mean changing the behavior of xmlconcat in 9.0 and then again

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Hmm. OK. Well here is a patch that tries to fix the xmlconcat error, > anyway. It seems to work, but maybe could stand a little tightening. Can we take the patch for 9.0? The bug is registered as an open item: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items A

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: Hmm. OK. Well here is a patch that tries to fix the xmlconcat error, anyway. It seems to work, but maybe could stand a little tightening. I liked your previous idea (rethink the whole mess in 9.1) better. As far as the patch itself is concerne

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Andrew Dunstan writes: > Hmm. OK. Well here is a patch that tries to fix the xmlconcat error, > anyway. It seems to work, but maybe could stand a little tightening. I liked your previous idea (rethink the whole mess in 9.1) better. As far as the patch itself is concerned, the complete lack of e

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Peter Eisentraut wrote: Our version of SQL/XML support references SQL:2003 which references XML 1.0, where omitting the XMLDecl is legal. You can't omit the XMLDecl in XML 1.1, because you need it to communicate the fact that it's version 1.1. Hmm. OK. Well here is a patch that tries to

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

On ons, 2010-03-24 at 14:51 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Actually, I have come to the conclusion that the biggest problem in > this > area is that we accept XML documents with a leading DOCTYPE node at > all. > Our docs state: > > The xml type can store well-formed "documents", as defined

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Peter Eisentraut wrote: On mån, 2010-03-22 at 19:38 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: But if we are not comfortable about being able to do that safely, I would be OK with just raising an error if a concatenation is attempted where one value contains a DTD. The impact in practice s

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

On mån, 2010-03-22 at 19:38 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > But if we are not comfortable about being able to do that safely, I > > would be OK with just raising an error if a concatenation is > attempted > > where one value contains a DTD. The impact in practice should be > low. > > > > Righ

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Peter Eisentraut wrote: On sön, 2010-03-21 at 13:07 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Yeah, maybe. According to the only legal child of an XML Document node that is not also a legal child of a DocumentFragment node is a DocumentType no

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

On sön, 2010-03-21 at 13:07 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Yeah, maybe. According to > the only > legal child of an XML Document node that is not also a legal child of a > DocumentFragment node is a DocumentType node. So we could probabl

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items I have just been looking at the xmlconcat bug on that list. I can't think of any better solution than parsing the resulting string to make sure it is well-formed before we return,

Re: xmlconcat (was [HACKERS] 9.0 release notes done)

Andrew Dunstan writes: >> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items > I have just been looking at the xmlconcat bug on that list. I can't > think of any better solution than parsing the resulting string to make > sure it is well-formed before we return, That might be a reasonab