Re: Native XML
От | David E. Wheeler |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Native XML |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5700016C-4D5C-4277-828D-90992949C045@kineticode.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Native XML (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Native XML
Re: Native XML |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Feb 27, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Well, that's why I asked --- if it's going to be a huge chunk of code, > then I agree this is the wrong path to pursue. However, I do feel that > libxml pretty well sucks, so if we could replace it with a relatively > small amount of code, that might be the right thing to do. I think that XML parsers must be hard to get really right, because of all those I've used in Perl, XML::LibXML is far andaway the best. Its docs suck, but it does the work really well. > No, because the xpath stuff is fundamentally broken, and nobody seems to > know how to make libxslt do what we actually need. See the open bugs > on the TODO list. XPath is broken? I use it heavily in the Perl module Test::XPath and now, in PostgreSQL, with my explanation extension. http://github.com/theory/explanation/ Is this something I need to worry about? Best, David
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: