Mike Fowler writes:
> On 11/08/10 21:27, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yes. Mike, are you expecting to submit a new version before the end of
>> the week?
> Yes and here it is, apologies for the delay. I have re-implemented
> xml_is_well_formed such that it is sensitive to the XMLOPTION. The
> additional
Hello
I checked last version:
* there are not a problem with regress and contrib regress tests
* the design is simple and clean now - well documented
notes:
* don't get a patch via copy/paste from mailing list archive - there
are a broken xml2 tests via this access!
* I didn't find a sentence so
On 11/08/10 21:27, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
There's also the fact that it would probably end up parsing the data
twice. Given xmloption, I'm inclined to think Tom has it right:
provided xml_is_well_formed() that follows xmloption
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> There's also the fact that it would probably end up parsing the data
>> twice. Given xmloption, I'm inclined to think Tom has it right:
>> provided xml_is_well_formed() that follows xmloption, plus a specific
>> version
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On lör, 2010-08-07 at 16:47 +0100, Mike Fowler wrote:
>>> To be honest I'm happiest with returning a boolean, even if there is
>>> some confusion over content only being valid. Though
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On lör, 2010-08-07 at 16:47 +0100, Mike Fowler wrote:
>> To be honest I'm happiest with returning a boolean, even if there is
>> some confusion over content only being valid. Though changing the
>> return
>> value to DOCUMENT/CONTENT/NULL
On lör, 2010-08-07 at 16:47 +0100, Mike Fowler wrote:
> To be honest I'm happiest with returning a boolean, even if there is
> some confusion over content only being valid. Though changing the
> return
> value to DOCUMENT/CONTENT/NULL makes things a touch more explicit,
> the
> same results can
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On lör, 2010-07-31 at 13:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I think the point of this function is to determine whether a cast to
>>> xml will throw an error. The behavior should probably match exactly
>>> whatever test w
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On lör, 2010-07-31 at 13:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think the point of this function is to determine whether a cast to
>> xml will throw an error. The behavior should probably match exactly
>> whatever test would be applied there.
> Maybe there should be
> xml
On 06/08/10 21:55, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On fre, 2010-08-06 at 14:43 +0100, Mike Fowler wrote:
Or perhaps it could return a string instead of a boolean: content,
document, or NULL if it's neither.
I like the sound of that. In fact this helps workaround the IS
DOCUMENT
and IS CONTENT limitat
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On fre, 2010-08-06 at 07:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > What about making the function sensitive to the XML OPTION, such
>> that:
>> >
>> > test=# SET xmloption TO DOCUMENT;
>> > SET
>> > text=# SELECT xml_is_well_formed('foo');
>> >
>>
On fre, 2010-08-06 at 14:43 +0100, Mike Fowler wrote:
> > Or perhaps it could return a string instead of a boolean: content,
> > document, or NULL if it's neither.
> >
>
> I like the sound of that. In fact this helps workaround the IS
> DOCUMENT
> and IS CONTENT limitations such that you can
On fre, 2010-08-06 at 07:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > What about making the function sensitive to the XML OPTION, such
> that:
> >
> > test=# SET xmloption TO DOCUMENT;
> > SET
> > text=# SELECT xml_is_well_formed('foo');
> >
> > xml_is_well_formed
> >
> > f
> > (1 row)
On 06/08/10 12:31, Robert Haas wrote:
Maybe there should be
xml_is_well_formed()
xml_is_well_formed_document()
xml_is_well_formed_content()
I agree that consistency with SQL/XML is desirable, but for someone
coming from the outside, the unqualified claim that 'foo' is well-formed
XML might sou
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Mike Fowler wrote:
> On 03/08/10 16:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>
>> On lör, 2010-07-31 at 13:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Well-formedness should probably only allow XML documents.
>>>
>>> I think the point of this function is to determine whether a cast
On 03/08/10 16:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On lör, 2010-07-31 at 13:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Well-formedness should probably only allow XML documents.
I think the point of this function is to determine whether a cast to
xml will throw an error. The behavior should probably match exactly
w
Hello
2010/8/3 Peter Eisentraut :
> On lör, 2010-07-31 at 13:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > Well-formedness should probably only allow XML documents.
>>
>> I think the point of this function is to determine whether a cast to
>> xml will throw an error. The behavior should probably match exactl
On lör, 2010-07-31 at 13:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Well-formedness should probably only allow XML documents.
>
> I think the point of this function is to determine whether a cast to
> xml will throw an error. The behavior should probably match exactly
> whatever test would be applied there
On 02/08/10 07:46, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I have not any suggestions now - so I'll change flag to "ready to commit"
sorry - contrib module should be a fixed
patch attached
Thanks Pavel, you saved me some time!
Regards,
--
Mike Fowler
Registered Linux user: 379787
--
Sent via pgsql-hacker
2010/8/2 Pavel Stehule :
> 2010/7/31 Robert Haas :
>> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> On fre, 2010-07-30 at 12:50 +0100, Mike Fowler wrote:
> * xml_is_well_formed returns true for simple text
>
> postgres=# SELECT xml_is_well_formed('');
> xml
2010/7/31 Robert Haas :
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On fre, 2010-07-30 at 12:50 +0100, Mike Fowler wrote:
>>> > * xml_is_well_formed returns true for simple text
>>> >
>>> > postgres=# SELECT xml_is_well_formed('');
>>> > xml_is_well_formed
>>> > ---
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On fre, 2010-07-30 at 12:50 +0100, Mike Fowler wrote:
>> > * xml_is_well_formed returns true for simple text
>> >
>> > postgres=# SELECT xml_is_well_formed('');
>> > xml_is_well_formed
>> >
>> > t
>> > (1 row)
On fre, 2010-07-30 at 12:50 +0100, Mike Fowler wrote:
> > * xml_is_well_formed returns true for simple text
> >
> > postgres=# SELECT xml_is_well_formed('');
> > xml_is_well_formed
> >
> > t
> > (1 row)
> >
> > it is probably wrong result - is it ok??
> >
>
> Yes t
Hello
2010/7/30 Mike Fowler :
> Hi Pavel,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to review my patch. Attached is a new version
> addressing your concerns.
>
> On 29/07/10 14:21, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>> I have a few issues:
>> * broken regress test (fedora 13 - xmllint: using libxml version 20707)
ok -
Hi Pavel,
Thanks for taking the time to review my patch. Attached is a new version
addressing your concerns.
On 29/07/10 14:21, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I have a few issues:
* broken regress test (fedora 13 - xmllint: using libxml version 20707)
postgres=# SELECT xml_is_well_formed('http://postg
Hello
I looked on patch
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=334 .This patch
moves function xml_is_well_formed from contrib xm2 to core.
* Is the patch in context diff format?
yes
* Does it apply cleanly to the current CVS HEAD?
yes
* Does it include reasonable tests, necessa
26 matches
Mail list logo
