Re: Review: Re: [PATCH] Re: [HACKERS] Adding xpath_exists function

2010-08-08 Thread Tom Lane
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? >>

Re: Review: Re: [PATCH] Re: [HACKERS] Adding xpath_exists function

2010-08-07 Thread Mike Fowler
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

Re: Review: Re: [PATCH] Re: [HACKERS] Adding xpath_exists function

2010-08-06 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: Review: Re: [PATCH] Re: [HACKERS] Adding xpath_exists function

2010-08-06 Thread Mike Fowler
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

Re: Review: Re: [PATCH] Re: [HACKERS] Adding xpath_exists function

2010-08-05 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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 >

Re: [RRR] Review: Re: [PATCH] Re: [HACKERS] Adding xpath_exists function

2010-07-27 Thread Jeff Davis
On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 19:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 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

Re: Review: Re: [PATCH] Re: [HACKERS] Adding xpath_exists function

2010-07-27 Thread Robert Haas
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); > >

Review: Re: [PATCH] Re: [HACKERS] Adding xpath_exists function

2010-07-27 Thread David Fetter
== Submission review == * Is the patch in context diff format? Yes. * Does it apply cleanly to the current CVS HEAD? Yes. patch -p1 < ../xpath_exists-3.patch patching file doc/src/sgml/func.sgml Hunk #1 succeeded at 8642 (offset 16 lines). patching file src/backend/uti