| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-21 16:36:52 | Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2011-02-21 16:21:37 | Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw |