Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This is part of the SQL standard. > > [ shrug ] There is a *boatload* of new stuff in SQL2003, most of which > we probably won't ever implement. The foundation alone has enough new > cruft to keep us busy for years ... never mind stuff that shows up only > in Part 14. > > Basically, SQL2003 is way too big for the argument "it's in the spec" > to be an automatic trump card for putting features into core PG. > We have to think about distribution size and maintainability versus > the usefulness of specific features. > > If there were a serious amount of demand for the SQL2003 XML features > then I wouldn't be averse to putting them in, but right now it looks > like bloat with little redeeming social value. Who other than the > submitter has asked for this? I don't even see "XML" listed in TODO.
Well, we have been pushing XML out of the database into side projects, which I think is the way to go until we have an XML-standard export format. With this one, I don't see how we can do it externally and meet the spec. I would like to see an outline of what XML things we support and what we don't. Is this XML patch a major missing thing? No idea. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
