Where are we on this? Peter thought the consistency makes sense, but if
we can provide functionality that doesn't require libxml, why not
do it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> On 2/21/07, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > I think it would be better that leaving --with-libxml out (i.e.
> > compiling without libxml2 support) would only disable those parts in XML
> > functionality that require libxml2 for their implementation; the rest of
> > the stuff should be compiled in regardless of the setting.
> >
> > Is this not what is done currently?
> >
>
> The thing is that some functions of "XML support" are based on
> libxml2, some are not. libxml2 contains useful routines to deal with
> XML data. Now we have: XMLELEMENT uses such routines and XMLPI
> doesn't. Actually, all SQL/XML publishing function could be
> implemented w/o libxml2 -- but it's more convenient to use those
> routines in some cases... And there is no guarantee that functions
> that don't currently use libxml2 will not use them in future.
>
> What I want to propose is just simplification -- consider all XML
> stuff as one package, including XML type, SQL/XML publishing, XPath
> funcs, additional publishing functions recently added by Peter (btw,
> who knows -- maybe libxml2 will help to improve them somehow in
> future?), etc.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Nikolay
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
