| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Satoshi Nagayasu <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Akshat Nair <akshat(dot)nair(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Get explain output of postgresql in Tables |
| Date: | 2006-03-24 09:50:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20060324095035.GK90527@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 07:54:09AM +0900, Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > Structure for the human-consumable output or for something that would be
> > machine-parsed? ISTM it would be best to keep the current output as-is,
> > and provide some other means for producing machine-friendly output,
> > presumably in a table format.
>
> How about (well-formed) XML format?
> Anyone menthioned in the past threads?
>
> I guess XML is good for the explain structure.
Unless you want to actually analyze the output in something like
plpgsql, but I can certainly see uses for both. Perhaps getting one
implimented will make it easier to implement the other.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-03-24 09:58:52 | Re: Did this work in earlier version of Postgres? |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2006-03-24 09:03:04 | Re: Did this work in earlier version of Postgres? |