Re: native xml processing vs what Postgres and Oracle offer

From: paul c <>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:15:34 GMT
Message-ID: <GDz0l.150$xD3.108_at_edtnps83>

rpost wrote:
> paul c wrote:

>> When you talk of "replies to replies", as you have done in this thread, 
>> it makes me think that nothing I can say will cause you to think more 
>> precisely, which is what is needed.

> It would help focus discussions if you could bring yourself
> to omit stuff like this. It tempts me to comment on its accuracy,
> which is not what this newsgroup is for.
> ...

You could do well to be so tempted. The opposite is dooming oneself to endless dead-ends (apologies to Yogi Berra). Bring it on! ...

>>                                      Obviously there are least three 
>> predicates here.

> No, two will do: message and reply, where reply is-a message (i.e.
> same primary key with a dependency key(reply) \subseteq key(message)).
> An auxiliary predicate may be used to keep reply's transitive closure.
> ...

In other words, 2 + 1 = 3 predicates.

>> If you are "in the trees", I invite you to try to put 
>> all three in one hierarchy, but I don't think I want you to show me the 
>> result3.

> I don't understand this remark.

I know you don't. Received on Fri Dec 12 2008 - 21:15:34 CET

Original text of this message