logo       

Re: [HACKERS] xpath not a good replacement for xpath_string: msg#01894

pgsql-hackers

Subject: Re: [HACKERS] xpath not a good replacement for xpath_string

On Tuesday 28 July 2009 23:30:23 pgsql@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> The thing that perplexed me was that it was not obvious from the docs how,
> exactly, to get the functionality that was simple and straight forward in
> XML2.

I continue to be in favor of adding

xpath_string
xpath_number
xpath_boolean

functions, which would be both easier to use and provide a more casting-free
approach to pass the data around. In the past there were some doubts and
objections about that, but I think it could be done.

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

Google Custom Search

News | Mail Home | sitemap | FAQ | advertise