If it turns out to be that simple, great - my first goal would be not to
touch the backend at all. But I suspect there are some significant semantic
issues lurking in the spec that may make that goal unattainable. In any
event, I agree with the impulse to change nothing in the backend unless
absolutely necessary to do it right - and only then if we determine upon
careful consideration that it really is worth doing. I *think* it *might* be
well worth it - but only real effort will yield a definitive answer.
- Bob Calco
%% -----Original Message-----
%% From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
%% [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Sean Chittenden
%% Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 7:51 PM
%% To: Bob Calco
%% Cc: Merlin Moncure; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
%% Subject: Re: [HACKERS] XML ouput for psql
%%
%%
%% > I like PostgreSQL just as it is, and truth be told, I'd like
%% to see some
%% > additional features in PL/pgSQL that are completely unrelated
%% to the whole
%% > XML issue. But I see some interesting possibilities for
%% PostgreSQL to make
%% > inroads in enterprise development if it were the first open
%% source database
%% > to do something truly useful with XQuery concepts.
%%
%% Um, why change the backend at all? Why not have libpq do the
%% interference mapping between the front end and backend so that we can
%% leave the backend alone? Seems like a simple application of a good
%% SAX parser to me. -sc
%%
%% --
%% Sean Chittenden
%%
%% ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
%% TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
%%
