Re: voting to the xslt_process() need - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: voting to the xslt_process() need
Date
Msg-id 28508.1320688834@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: voting to the xslt_process() need  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Please also see earlier discussions of these items in the mailing list.

Yes.  It's very unlikely that we'll accept a patch that just moves
xslt_process into core without doing anything about its definitional
and implementation shortcomings.  See for instance

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-02/msg01878.php
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: J Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: unaccent extension missing some accents
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: synchronous commit vs. hint bits