Nikolay Samokhvalov wrote:
> On 3/17/07, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> In principle I am in favor of the patch.
>>
>> Would it be better to use some more unlikely name for the dummy root
>> element used to process fragments than <x> ?
>>
>> Perhaps even something in a special namespace?
>>
>
> I did think about it, but I didn't find any difficulties with simple
> <x>...</x>. The thing is that regardless the element name we have
> corresponding shift in XPath epression -- so, there cannot be any
> problem from my point of view... But maybe I don't see something and
> it's better to avoid _possible_ problem. It depends on PostgreSQL code
> style itself -- what is the best approach in such cases? To avoid
> unknown possible difficulties or to be clear?
>
If you are sure that it won't cause a problem then I think it's ok to
leave it, as long as there is a comment in the code that says why we are
sure it's ok.
cheers
andrew
