On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 12:46:03PM +0530, Sandeep Thakkar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 2:42 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> > Own implementation of SQL/XML generating functions like XMLFOREST or
> > XMLELEMENT should not be too
> > difficult. Significantly more difficult problem is parsing of XML (more
> > with namespaces), although some basic
> > support for XMLTABLE should not be too hard too.
>
> I don't think anybody really wants to roll our own XML parser.
>
> > Isn't possible to call Rust code from C? Then maybe there are some
> > possibility from Rust world
> > https://github.com/ballsteve/xrust
>
> Maybe. I think the fundamental problem here, similar to what we've
> run into elsewhere, is that we chose a library to depend on without
> thinking hard enough about whether it would be well-supported in the
> long run. I see little reason to think that that risk would be less
> for some random not-written-in-C implementation. If we want to
> jump ship away from libxml2, we had better ask hard questions about
> the new choice.
>
> Also, libxslt depends on libxml2, and there is no maintainer now after the
> recent commits done to remove the existing ones:
> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxslt/-/commit/
> c8b1ea4b89a9b81fa611f32c80f47df0c3b3b004
> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libxslt/-/commit/
> 923903c59d668af42e3144bc623c9190a0f65988
Where do we think our use of libxml2 is heading? Do you suspect
security scanners will start negative reporting the use of libxml2?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
