On 3/27/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
>
> Where are we on this? Peter thought the consistency makes sense, but if
> we can provide functionality that doesn't require libxml, why not
> do it?


I'm still for --enable-xml and putting _everything_ XML-related under this
option. My main points are:
- we cannot guarantee that existing libxml2-free functions will not require
them in the future (because libxml2 contains useful routines);
- libxml2-free functions (e.g. Peter's XML mapping functions,
http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsq...NS-XML-MAPPING)
produce XML values, but we cannot use XPath function for them unless we have
libxml2;
- people will make errors, trying to understand what needs libxml2, and
what doesn't -- approach "all or nothing" is simple and straightforward;


Well, it seems that I have no more arguments :-) If there is no objections,
I'll send the patch tonight.
If I am wrong and it's better to leave libxml2-free capabilities, then IMHO
we need to reflect it explicitly in the docs, what requires libxml2, and
what doesn't

--
Best regards,
Nikolay