On 27/02/11 19:37, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Feb 27, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

Well, that's why I asked --- if it's going to be a huge chunk of code,
then I agree this is the wrong path to pursue.  However, I do feel that
libxml pretty well sucks, so if we could replace it with a relatively
small amount of code, that might be the right thing to do.
I think that XML parsers must be hard to get really right, because of all those 
I've used in Perl, XML::LibXML is far and away the best. Its docs suck, but it 
does the work really well.
No, because the xpath stuff is fundamentally broken, and nobody seems to
know how to make libxslt do what we actually need.  See the open bugs
on the TODO list.
XPath is broken? I use it heavily in the Perl module Test::XPath and now, in 
PostgreSQL, with my explanation extension.


Is this something I need to worry about
I don't believe that XPath is "fundamentally broken", but I think Tom may have meant xslt. When reviewing a recent patch to xml2/xslt I found a few bugs in the way were using libxslt, as well as a bug in the library itself (see http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-02/msg01878.php).

However if Tom does mean that xpath is the culprit, it may be with the way the libxml2 library works. It's a very messy singleton. If I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll be corrected!

Mike Fowler
Registered Linux user: 379787

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to