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

  + 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

Reply via email to