Re: the case for machine-readable error fields

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: the case for machine-readable error fields
Date: 2009-08-05 00:36:09
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> So, we are just trying to whip into shape explain diagnostics which are
> in JSON or XML, and now you want us to exclude XML from this one because
> you don't like it? Can we please try for some consistency?
> Sorry to break it to you, but there are plenty of people and businesses
> who want XML. And I certainly don't want to have to master every data
> representation model out there. XML has far more traction than anything
> else that's comparable in my experience.
> The fact that Greg is prepared to suggest CSV, with its obvious serious
> deficiencies, as being *better* than XML, makes his whole argument
> highly suspect IMNSHO.

>From a business perspective, XML is the only viable option for output.

Joshua D. Drake

PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 -
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-08-05 00:53:16 Re: [PATCH] DefaultACLs
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-08-04 23:55:39 Re: the case for machine-readable error fields