Re: PostgreSQL vs SQL/XML Standards

On 10/25/18 11:15, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> čt 25. 10. 2018 v 17:09 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
> napsal:
>> Maybe the best way forward is to implement all the JSON functionality
>> and remove the SQL/XML bits.
> 
> It can be bigger compatibility break in Postgres history. SQL/XML functions
> are widely used.

It seems to me that evolution to the 2006+ standard version could be done
mostly non-disruptively (provided an agreeable library can be found).

I think Tom's suggestion[1] to just make XML OPTION CONTENT mean what
it means in 2006+ would be an easy change to make immediately, and would
not disrupt anybody ... it would only make some things succeed that now
fail, and it would match what our documentation already says. It would
make our XML type equivalent to 2006+ XML(CONTENT(ANY)).

Beyond that, further steps toward 2006+ could largely avoid disruption.

If we implement the typmod'ed XML types, surely the parser would simply
treat untypmod'ed 'XML' as meaning XML(CONTENT(ANY)). (The standard does
allow for the typmod to be missing, and leaves it "implementation-defined
whether SEQUENCE, CONTENT(ANY), or CONTENT(UNTYPED) is implicit", so
that's all by the book.)

The existing functions xpath and xpath_exists can be kept unchanged,
as their names are distinct from anything in the standard. A library
that supports XQuery is likely also to support XPath in "1.0 compatibility
mode", so those functions could keep their semantics.

The current xmlvalidate() has the wrong semantics and return type, but it
also does nothing but ereport unimplemented, so no current uses would be
hurt by redefining it.

XMLTABLE would be the headache. Using the standard name for something
that ain't the standard function has not left any painless way that the
standard function could be added. OTOH, it has only been in the wild
since 10, so renaming it to something else (xpath_table?) will probably
be more painless if done soon than it ever would be later.

On 10/25/18 11:23, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> The libraries we depend on should really either be available in the
> package repositories of the major Linux distribution or be something
> we can put in our own repository and maintain without too much pain.
> So using Saxon/C does not seem like a realistic option.

That makes good sense. The approach I proposed in [2] would be to
target the XQC API as an integration point. If there is one library
that might be most acceptable (it seems xqilla is in several repositories),
it could become a preferred or supported choice, but others could be
available if an administrator wanted to separately obtain them, perhaps
because of better performance on a particular workload, or avoidance of
some bug that a given workload turns up.

-Chap

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/22271.1540458133%40sss.pgh.pa.us
[2]:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_vs_SQL/XML_Standards#One_proposal