Mike Fowler m...@mlfowler.com writes:
On 06/08/10 20:55, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On fre, 2010-08-06 at 09:04 +0100, Mike Fowler wrote:
If the patch is to be committed, does it make sense for me to refine
it such that it uses the new xpath internal function you extracted in
the xmlexists
On 06/08/10 20:55, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On fre, 2010-08-06 at 09:04 +0100, Mike Fowler wrote:
If the patch is to be committed, does it make sense for me to refine
it such that it uses the new xpath internal function you extracted in
the xmlexists patch?
Yes, you can probably shrink this
On 06/08/10 05:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tis, 2010-07-27 at 16:33 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
* Do we already have it?
Not really. There are kludges to accomplish these things, but
they're available mostly in the sense that a general-purpose
language allows you to write
On fre, 2010-08-06 at 09:04 +0100, Mike Fowler wrote:
If the patch is to be committed, does it make sense for me to refine
it such that it uses the new xpath internal function you extracted in
the xmlexists patch?
Yes, you can probably shrink this patch down to about 20 lines.
--
Sent via
Excerpts from Mike Fowler's message of mar jun 29 06:37:28 -0400 2010:
After seeing some other posts in the last couple of days, I realised I
hadn't documented the function in the SGML. I have now done so, and
added a couple of tests with XML literals. Please find the patch
attached. Now
On tis, 2010-07-27 at 16:33 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
* Do we already have it?
Not really. There are kludges to accomplish these things, but
they're available mostly in the sense that a general-purpose
language allows you to write code to do anything a Turing machine
can
== Submission review ==
* Is the patch in context diff format?
Yes.
* Does it apply cleanly to the current CVS HEAD?
Yes.
patch -p1 ../xpath_exists-3.patch
patching file doc/src/sgml/func.sgml
Hunk #1 succeeded at 8642 (offset 16 lines).
patching file
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:33 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Minor quibble with the regression tests: should we be using
dollar quotes in things like this? Doubled-up quote marks:
SELECT xpath_exists('//town[text() =
On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 19:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:33 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Minor quibble with the regression tests: should we be using
dollar quotes in things like this? Doubled-up quote marks:
SELECT
Mike Fowler wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have added this to the next commit-fest:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view?id=6
Thanks Bruce. Attached is a revised patch which changes the code
slightly such that it uses an older version of the libxml library.
I've
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have added this to the next commit-fest:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view?id=6
Thanks Bruce. Attached is a revised patch which changes the code
slightly such that it uses an older version of the libxml library. I've
added comments to
Mike Fowler wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
Please email your patch to the list (replying to this email is fine)
and add it here:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
Here's my patch, developed against HEAD, that adds the function
'xpath_exists'. The function is a
Robert Haas wrote:
Please email your patch to the list (replying to this email is fine)
and add it here:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/open
Here's my patch, developed against HEAD, that adds the function
'xpath_exists'. The function is a lot simpler than originally
Robert Haas wrote:
Oh, I see. Well, that might be reasonable syntactic sugar, although I
think you should make it wrap the path in exists() unconditionally,
rather than testing for an existing wrap.
I'll leave it out for now, it saves me some effort after all.
Please email your patch to
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Mike Fowler m...@mlfowler.com wrote:
Hi hackers,
Although this is a very small change I figured I'd practice the policy of
outlining your change before you write the code and attempt a patch
submission. Essentially I see the function as a convenience function
Quoting Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
I'm not sure I understand how this more convenient than just using
xpath() with exists()?
It will save a lot of complexity in WHERE clauses. For example using
exists() in xpath() you might construct something like:
WHERE
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 5:53 PM, m...@mlfowler.com wrote:
Quoting Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
I'm not sure I understand how this more convenient than just using
xpath() with exists()?
It will save a lot of complexity in WHERE clauses. For example using
exists() in xpath() you might
17 matches
Mail list logo
