Re: generic options for explain

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:02:53AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > This is all much more complicated than what I proposed, and I fail
> > to see what it buys us. I'd say that you're just reinforcing the
> > point I made upthread, which is that insisting that XML is the
> > only way to get more detailed information will just create a
> > cottage industry of beating that XML output format into
> > submission.
>
> The impression I have is that (to misquote Churchill) XML is the
> worst option available, except for all the others. We need
> something that can represent a fairly complex data structure, easily
> supports addition or removal of particular fields in the structure
> (including fields not foreseen in the original design), is not hard
> for programs to parse, and is widely supported --- ie, "not hard"
> includes "you don't have to write your own parser, in most
> languages". How many realistic alternatives are there?

JSON for one, and it's *much* lighter in just about every way.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate