Re: --enable-xml instead of --with-libxml? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nikolay Samokhvalov
Subject Re: --enable-xml instead of --with-libxml?
Date
Msg-id e431ff4c0702220032i72e4052esbdf7bb3ffa7b4d7d@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: --enable-xml instead of --with-libxml?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: --enable-xml instead of --with-libxml?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Re: --enable-xml instead of --with-libxml?  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2/21/07, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> I think it would be better that leaving --with-libxml out (i.e.
> compiling without libxml2 support) would only disable those parts in XML
> functionality that require libxml2 for their implementation; the rest of
> the stuff should be compiled in regardless of the setting.
>
> Is this not what is done currently?
>

The thing is that some functions of "XML support" are based on
libxml2, some are not. libxml2 contains useful routines to deal with
XML data. Now we have: XMLELEMENT uses such routines and XMLPI
doesn't. Actually, all SQL/XML publishing function could be
implemented w/o libxml2 -- but it's more convenient to use those
routines in some cases... And there is no guarantee that functions
that don't currently use libxml2 will not use them in future.

What I want to propose is just simplification -- consider all XML
stuff as one package, including XML type, SQL/XML publishing, XPath
funcs, additional publishing functions recently added by Peter (btw,
who knows -- maybe libxml2 will help to improve them somehow in
future?), etc.

-- 
Best regards,
Nikolay


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: SCMS question
Next
From: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD"
Date:
Subject: Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2