On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 5:58 AM Jim Jones <jim.jones@uni-muenster.de> wrote:
> On 20.01.25 23:21, Chapman Flack wrote:
> > Therefore I'm thinking that, given the specifics of our XML support,
> > a fully conformant and efficient XMLDOCUMENT could be implemented
> > just by returning its XML argument.
>
>
> After your explanation, I tend to agree.
>
> v3, attached, incorporates these changes and updates the regression
> tests accordingly.
>
>
> >
> > That opens a question of whether it's worth the effort to supply
> > it at all. Maybe it could reduce the surprise for people coming from
> > another DBMS and finding it missing, and/or be a placeholder in case
> > we ever implement enough more of the newer SQL/XML standard for it
> > to have a real effect.
>
> Although quite trivial, I believe this function could still be valuable
> in facilitating the migration of scripts from other database systems --
> improving SQL/XML conformance also isn't a bad thing :).
>
Is there some concrete use case you have seen that this would help
with? Not objecting to adding it, but you've mentioned this migration
idea twice but it seems to me this doesn't conform with existing
implementations, and I don't see much benefit in migration use cases
specifically, so I'm just curious if I am overlooking something?
Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net
