Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch

On Aug 6, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:

>> Sorry, not following you here
> 
> I would to difference a key and value in notation.

That's exactly what my solution does. The array solution doesn't. Whether it's appropriate to use a custom composite type, however, is an open question.

>> Pavel doesn't understand "no" ;-)
> 
> you are don't writing a stored procedures like me - so maybe you are
> doesn't understand a my motivation. :). I have to try it. You are
> rejected almost of all my proposals - named parameters, variadic
> functions, enhancing of RAISE STATEMENT - and now its in core. But it
> was a battle :).

This is how most stuff gets in: you fight Tom to exhaustion. It's a slog, but usually the resulting implementation is better than it would otherwise have been.

> Try to write a XML-RPC support for PostgreSQL, and
> try to thinking on programmer comfort, please. I am sure so our
> support for stored procedures or external procedures are not complete
> - it is limited by BISON possibilities, and because BISON isn't
> extensible parser, I am searching other ways. If I can enhance a
> syntax from external module, I don't talk.

I think that some sort of variadic pairs would be useful for this. But since there is no core "ordered pair" data type, I don't think you're going to get too far.

Best,

David