On 02/21/2011 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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
>> 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?
Well, I thought the motivation was to allow easy construction of parsers
for the data, since creating a parser for those formats is pretty trivial.
Anyway, if we don't care about validation that's fine. I just didn't
want us to make that decision unconsciously.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2011-02-21 16:45:22|
|Subject: Re: FDW API: don't like the EXPLAIN mechanism|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-02-21 16:36:52|
|Subject: Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw |