Re: Question about xmloption and pg_restore - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Question about xmloption and pg_restore
Date
Msg-id 22271.1540458133@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: Question about xmloption and pg_restore  (Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>)
Responses Re: Question about xmloption and pg_restore  (Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net> writes:
> On 05/18/18 15:50, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Hmm.  I thought that xmloption = 'content' was supposed to be strictly
>> more permissive than xmloption = 'document'.

> In the spirit of not leaving a good question hanging, this turns out to be
> a difference between the 2003 SQL/XML standard (which PG implements) and
> the later versions, which changed the data model so there really is a
> containment relationship between 'content' and 'document'.
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_vs_SQL/XML_Standards#XML_OPTION

See also
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/153478795159.1302.9617586466368699403%40wrigleys.postgresql.org

It's odd that people are just reporting this now when it's been like that
for quite a few years, but anyway we've got a problem.  Sounds like maybe
adopting the later standards' definitions would fix it?  Although I have
no idea how complicated that'd be.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Shay Rojansky
Date:
Subject: Re: UNLISTEN, DISCARD ALL and readonly standby
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tab complete EXECUTE FUNCTION for CREATE (EVENT) TRIGGER