This has been saved for the 8.4 release:


Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 28. September 2007 schrieb Nikolay Samokhvalov:
> >   
> >> what should be returned for XML like "<em><strong>PostgreSQL</strong>
> >> is a powerful, open source relational database system</em>" if user
> >> requests for text under "em" node? In XML world, the correct answer is
> >> "PostgreSQL  is a powerful, open source relational database system" --
> >> concatenation of all strings from the node itself and all its
> >> descendants, in the correct order. Will be this expected for RDBMS
> >> users?).
> >>     
> >
> > Well, if that is the defined behavior for XPath, then that's what we should 
> > do.
> >
> >   
> The xpath string value of a single node is the concatentation of the 
> text children of the node and all its children in document order, IIRC. 
> But that's not what we're dealing with here. xpath() doesn't return a 
> single node but a node set (or so say the docs). The string value of a 
> node set is in effect the string value of its first member, which seems 
> less than useful in this context, or at least no great guide for us.
> I think there's probably a good case for a cast from xml[] to text[] if 
> we don't have one.
> cheers
> andrew
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>        choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>        match

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to