From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | greg(at)turnstep(dot)com, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: XML ouput for psql |
Date: | 2003-03-17 23:18:49 |
Message-ID: | 12389.1047943129@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not really; what of applications other than shell scripts that would
>> like to get XML-formatted output?
> Well, programs can run psql using popen. It seems overkill to get the
> protocol involved, specially since it is output-only. I can't imagine
> who would bother with the wire protocol messiness just to get xml.
Having to popen a psql isn't overkill? This seems like a far messier
solution than the other. Furthermore, it's just plain not an available
solution in many scenarios (think of a Java program running JDBC; it may
not have privileges to do popen, and may not have access to a copy of
psql anyway).
If we were not already opening up the protocol for changes, I'd be
resistant to the idea too. But since we are, I think it should be fixed
where it's cleanest to fix it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-03-17 23:47:28 | Re: XML ouput for psql |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-03-17 23:08:12 | Re: XML ouput for psql |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-03-17 23:47:28 | Re: XML ouput for psql |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-03-17 23:08:12 | Re: XML ouput for psql |