Re: review: xml_is_well_formed
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Mike Fowler <mike@mlfowler.com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-08-11T20:27:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> 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 for each of content and document. > Another reasonable option here would be to forget about having > xml_is_well_formed() per se and ONLY offer > xml_is_well_formed_content() and xml_is_well_formed_document(). We already have xml_is_well_formed(); just dropping it doesn't seem like a helpful choice. > As a project management note, this CommitFest is over in 4 days, so > unless we have a new version of this patch real soon now we need to > defer it to the September 15th CommitFest Yes. Mike, are you expecting to submit a new version before the end of the week? regards, tom lane