From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: generic options for explain |
Date: | 2009-05-26 14:36:56 |
Message-ID: | 4A1BFE88.7030205@hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> In libxml-enabled builds at least, this could presumably be done fairly
>> easily via the XML functions, especially if we get XSLT processing into the
>> core XML functionality as I hope we can do this release. In fact, the
>> ability to leverage existing XML functionality to munge the output is the
>> thing that swings me in favor of XML as the machine readable output format
>> instead of JSON, since we don't have and aren't terribly likely to get an
>> inbuilt JSON parser. It means we wouldn't need some external tool at all.
Actually, I think a number of users would be *very* happy if we had a
builtin JSON parser. I'm unsure on how feasible that is though.
> I was thinking something similar, but from the pgAdmin perspective. We
> already use libxml2, but JSON would introduce another dependency for
> us.
Yeah, but probably not a huge one. There is one for wx, but I don't
think it's included by default.
--
Magnus Hagander
Self: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-05-26 14:38:42 | Re: generic options for explain |
Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2009-05-26 14:36:03 | Re: problem with plural-forms |