Am Sonntag, 24. Dezember 2006 02:44 schrieb Tom Lane:
* Isn't mapping XMLSERIALIZE to a cast completely wrong? Aside from
the issue already noted in the code that it won't reverse-list
correctly, this loses the DOCUMENT-vs-CONTENT flag, which I suppose
must be important.
It is important, but
* Shouldn't the xml type support binary I/O? Right now it is the only
standard datatype that doesn't. I have no idea whether there is an
appropriate representation besides text, but if not we could define the
binary representation to be the same as text.
There is an effort to develop a binary
I wrote:
* I'm also quite afraid of xml_errmsg remaining non-null when the
storage it points at has been deallocated. Since this is apparently
only intended as debug support, maybe we could compile it only in debug
builds, to reduce the probability that it will fail in production?
Actually,
On 12/24/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I'm wondering about is why this printout is emitted as a separate
DEBUG message ... wouldn't it be better to incorporate it as the DETAIL
field of the error message?
Surely, it would. But the thing is that I couldn't manage to format
Nikolay Samokhvalov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 12/24/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I'm wondering about is why this printout is emitted as a separate
DEBUG message ... wouldn't it be better to incorporate it as the DETAIL
field of the error message?
Surely, it would. But the
I cleaned up some things I didn't like in the recent XML patch, but
there are several loose ends that I lack the energy to tackle now:
* Isn't mapping XMLSERIALIZE to a cast completely wrong? Aside from
the issue already noted in the code that it won't reverse-list
correctly, this loses the
