On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> Robert Haas wrote: >>> I think we need to either (1) fix the bugs and update the >>> documentation to remove the statement that this will be removed or (2) >>> actually remove it. > >> I agree it's a mess but I don't think just abandoning the functionality >> is a good idea. > > Yeah, we can't really remove it until we have a plausible substitute for > the xpath_table functionality. This is in the TODO list ...
My feeling is that if it's as flakey and unreliable as it currently is, we shouldn't ship it. Removing it from CVS doesn't mean "you can't use this any more"; this is open source. It just means people will have to go and get an old copy out of CVS and presumably in so doing they will be aware that we've removed it for a reason. We have a well-deserved reputation for quality and I would like to see us preserve that. Is anyone going to try to fix this for 9.0? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
