On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 16:37 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:51 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> >>> What I have proposed for 8.3 should not break a single case that currently
> >>> behaves usefully. If anyone has a counter-example please show it.
> >>>
> >>> What I have proposed for 8.4 possibly would break current "useful" behaviour
> >>> (FSVO "useful"), but should be done anyway on correctness grounds.
> >>>
> >> I dunno, aren't XML document fragments sort of a pretty common case?
> >>
> >
> > I'd rather argue that xml datatype should not even accept anything but
> > complete xml documents. Same as int field does not accept int[].
> >
> > Or maybe we rather need separate xmldocument and xmlforest/xmlfragments
> > types in next releases and leave the "base" xml as it is but deprecated
> > due to inability to fix it without breaking backwards compatibility.
> >
> >
>
> Some of the functions, including some specified in the standard, produce
> fragments. That's why we have the 'IS DOCUMENT' test.
But then you could use xmlfragments as the functions return type, no ?
Does tha standard require that the same field type must store both
documents and fragments ?
> You can also force validation as a document by saying SET XML OPTION
> DOCUMENT;
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
--
Hannu Krosing http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Scalability and Availability Services, Consulting and Training