Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h8YWz-0001mH-6U for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:57:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h8YWx-0008Mf-Sd for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:57:23 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h8YWx-0008Io-Fa for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:57:23 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h8YWv-0006jf-85 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:57:22 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x2PMucin018170; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 18:56:38 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Chapman Flack cc: Ryan Lambert , pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Pavel Stehule Subject: Re: Fix XML handling with DOCTYPE In-reply-to: <5C995B96.6050204@anastigmatix.net> References: <155355138978.16482.2985962575775445194.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org> <5C995B96.6050204@anastigmatix.net> Comments: In-reply-to Chapman Flack message dated "Mon, 25 Mar 2019 18:52:06 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <18168.1553554598.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 18:56:38 -0400 Message-ID: <18169.1553554598@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Chapman Flack writes: > Thanks for the review! Yes, that part of this commitfest entry has been > committed already and will appear in the next minor releases of those > branches. Indeed, thanks for verifying that this fixes your problem. > That leaves only one patch in this commitfest entry that is still in > need of review, namely the update to the documentation. Yeah. Since it *is* in need of review, I changed the CF entry's state back to Needs Review. regards, tom lane