On 8/25/23 14:42, Jim Jones wrote:
> Hi Vik
>
> Thanks for reviewing my patch!
Thank you for writing it!
> On 25.08.23 12:05, Vik Fearing wrote:
>> I am replying to this email, but my comments are based on the v2 patch.
>>
>> Thank you for working on this, and I think this is a valuable
>> addition. However, I have two issues with it.
>>
>> 1) There seems to be several spurious blank lines added that I do not
>> think are warranted.
>
> I tried to copy the aesthetics of other functions, but it seems I failed
> :) I removed a few blank lines. I hope it's fine now.
I am talking specifically about this:
@@ -505,6 +506,10 @@ xmlcomment(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
appendStringInfoText(&buf, arg);
appendStringInfoString(&buf, "-->");
+
+
+
+
PG_RETURN_XML_P(stringinfo_to_xmltype(&buf));
#else
NO_XML_SUPPORT();
>> 2) This patch does nothing to address the <XML returning clause> so we
>> can't claim to implement X038 without a disclaimer. Upon further
>> review, the same is true of XMLCOMMENT() so maybe that is okay for
>> this patch, and a more comprehensive patch for our xml features is
>> necessary.
>
> If we decide to not address this point here, I can take a look at it and
> work in a separated patch.
I do not think this should be addressed in this patch because there are
quite a lot of functions that need to handle this.
--
Vik Fearing