From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: machine-readable explain output |
Date: | 2009-06-14 17:00:24 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070906141000i7d75f944t185e6b737f9af62@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I believe we have things set up so that you can still print "xml" data
>>> without libxml configured in. We'd need to be sure casting to text
>>> works too, but other than that I don't see an issue here.
>
>> Hmm, I just tried to do this by modifying ExplainResultDesc to use
>> XMLOID rather than TEXTOID when stmt->format == EXPLAIN_FORMAT_XML,
>> and sure enough, explain (format xml) ... fails when --with-libxml is
>> not specified.
>
> That's because the code goes through BuildTupleFromCStrings, which
> invokes xml_in in this scenario, and xml_in (as opposed to xml_out)
> does depend on libxml.
>
> However, using BuildTupleFromCStrings is wasteful/stupid for *both*
> text and xml output, so it seems like getting rid of it is the thing
> to do here.
Makes sense. However, if we just make that change in do_tup_output(),
then we'll break the ability to use that function for non-text
datatypes. Currently that doesn't look like a problem, because the
only clients are ShowGUCConfigOption(), do_text_output_oneline(), and
do_text_output_multiline(),
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-14 17:02:51 | Re: machine-readable explain output |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2009-06-14 15:59:58 | Re: [GENERAL] Using results from DELETE ... RETURNING |