Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: FDW API: don't like the EXPLAIN mechanism

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Shigeru HANADA <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: FDW API: don't like the EXPLAIN mechanism
Date: 2011-02-21 16:23:36
Message-ID: 14889.1298305416@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 02/19/2011 11:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, it occurs to me that as long as we're passing the function the
>> ExplainState, it has what it needs to add arbitrary EXPLAIN result
>> fields.

> If we allow the invention of new explain states we'll never be able to 
> publish an authoritative schema definition of the data. That's not 
> necessarily an argument against doing it, just something to be aware of. 
> Maybe we don't care about having EXPLAIN XML output validated.

I thought one of the principal arguments for outputting XML/etc formats
was exactly that we'd be able to add fields without breaking readers.
If that's not the case, why did we bother?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-02-21 16:36:52
Subject: Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw
Previous:From: Thom BrownDate: 2011-02-21 16:21:37
Subject: Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group