Hi so 26. 1. 2019 v 4:25 odesÃlatel Chapman Flack <c...@anastigmatix.net> napsal:
> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: > make installcheck-world: tested, passed > Implements feature: tested, passed > Spec compliant: not tested > Documentation: not tested > maybe more simple will be work with original commitfest subscriptions. I can do review of xmltable-xmlexists-passing-mechanisms-2.patch. Documentation review will be harder - I am not a native speaker and I have not a necessary knowledges of XQuery (probably only you have this knowledge). > > As the reporter of the issues raised in this email thread, I've reviewed > the first patch > and contributed the second and third. > > WHAT THE PATCHES DO: > > xmltable-xpath-result-processing-bugfix-5.patch contains code changes > correcting > a subset of the issues that were raised in this email thread. > > xmltable-xmlexists-passing-mechanisms-2.patch adjusts the grammar to allow > the XML > parameter passing mechanism BY VALUE as well as BY REF. Both are ignored, > but > formerly BY VALUE was a syntax error, which was unintuitive considering > that BY VALUE > is the passing mechanism PostgreSQL implements (XML node identities are > not preserved). > > xml-functions-type-docfix-1.patch conforms the documentation to reflect > the changes in > this patch set and the limitations identified in this thread. > > WHAT I HAVE REVIEWED: > > I have applied all three patches over 18c0da8 and confirmed that > installcheck-world passes > and that the code changes resolve the issues they set out to resolve. > > I've made no entry for "spec compliant" because the question is moot; the > spec is written > in terms of the XQuery language, types, and concepts, and these facilities > in PG are > implemented on XPath 1.0, which doesn't have those. But the changes in > this patch set > do make the PG behaviors more, well, closely analogous to the way the spec > compliant > functions would behave. > > WHAT I HAVE NOT REVIEWED: > > The passing-mechanisms and docfix patches are my own work, so there should > be another > reviewer who is not me. I've looked closely at the technical, SQL/XML > behavior aspects already, > but a reviewer with an eye for documentation would be welcome. > > I'll venture my opinion that this is ready-for-committer to the extent of > my own review, but will > leave the status at needs-review for a not-me reviewer to update.
