| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: generic options for explain |
| Date: | 2009-05-25 15:22:24 |
| Message-ID: | 3612.1243264944@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm not sure I see why it would be less flexible. I'm imagining we define some
> record type, and a function that returns a set of those records.
I'm unimpressed by the various proposals to change EXPLAIN into a
function. Quoting the command-to-explain is going to be a pain in the
neck. And can you really imagine using it manually, especially if it
returns so many fields that you *have to* write out the list of fields
you actually want, else the result is unreadable? It's going to be just
as much of something you can only use through a helper application as
the XML way would be.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-05-25 15:27:27 | Re: Warnings in compile |
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2009-05-25 15:21:54 | Re: Warnings in compile |