Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> At the end, I'd like to think that it would be wiser to just remove
> entirely the test for node() or reduce the contents of the string to
> be able to strictly control the output order (say a simple
> '<e>pre<![CDATA[&ent1]]>post</e>' would do the trick). I cannot think
> about a better idea now. Note that removing the test case where we
> have node() has no impact on the coverage of xml.c.
Yeah, I confirm that: local code-coverage testing shows no change
in the number of lines reached in xml.c when I remove that column:
-SELECT * FROM XMLTABLE('*' PASSING '<e>pre<!--c1--><?pi arg?><![CDATA[&ent1]]><n2>&deep</n2>post</e>' COLUMNS x
xmlPATH 'node()', y xml PATH '/');
+SELECT * FROM XMLTABLE('*' PASSING '<e>pre<!--c1--><?pi arg?><![CDATA[&ent1]]><n2>&deep</n2>post</e>' COLUMNS y
xmlPATH '/');
Dropping the query altogether does result in a reduction in the
number of lines hit.
I did not check the other XMLTABLE infrastructure, so what probably
is best to do is keep the two output columns but change 'node()'
to something with a more stable result; any preferences?
regards, tom lane
