From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: YAML Was: CommitFest status/management |
Date: | 2009-12-05 00:42:16 |
Message-ID: | 4B19AC68.50902@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On top of that, if you did want YAML for easier readability, what
> aspect of the output is more readable in YAML than it is in text
> format? The only answer I can think of is that you like having each
> data element on a separate line, so that the plan is much longer but
> somewhat narrower. But if that's what you want, the JSON output is
> almost as good - the only difference is a bit of extra punctuation.
"almost as good" ... I agree with Kevin that it's more readable.
The whole patch just adds 144 lines. It doesn't look to me like there's
significant maintenance burden involved, but of course I need to defer
to the more experienced. It's even possible that we could reduce the
size of the patch still further if we really looked at it as just a
differently punctuated JSON.
Having compared the JSON and YAML output formats, I think having YAML as
a 2nd human-readable format might be valuable, even though it adds
nothing to machine-processing.
Again, if there were a sensible way to do YAML as a contrib module, I'd
go for that, but there isn't.
--Josh Berkus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2009-12-05 00:49:05 | Re: New VACUUM FULL |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-04 23:32:38 | Re: YAML Was: CommitFest status/management |