Re: review: xml_is_well_formed

Mike Fowler <mike@mlfowler.com> writes:
> On 11/08/10 21:27, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yes.  Mike, are you expecting to submit a new version before the end of
>> the week?

> Yes and here it is, apologies for the delay. I have re-implemented 
> xml_is_well_formed such that it is sensitive to the XMLOPTION. The 
> additional _document and _content methods are now present. Tests and 
> documentation adjusted to suit.

Applied with minor cleanups, mostly in the documentation.  The only
thing that seems worth remarking on is that since xml_is_well_formed
now depends on a GUC variable, it *cannot* be marked IMMUTABLE.  The
right marking in such cases is STABLE.
        regards, tom lane