Re: Some belated patch review for "Buffers" explain analyze patch

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>>> We can still hope that some feedback comes in during beta.
>
>>> I'm not opposed to that in principal, but in practice the PGadmin
>>> folks may not like us very much if we change things too drastically if
>>> they've got it working the way we had it...  we'll just have to see
>>> what reports we get, I suppose.
>
>> We're not planning to reimplement our existing parser for this release
>> so it won't bother us if you want to bash about any of the new
>> formats.
>
> Well, you're going to have to do more than zero work even with that
> plan, given the changes already made to the text format.

The important bits didn't really change (at least in ways that would
hurt us). Guillaume already worked on adding the new info.

> It would be
> really nice if we could get some feedback on the non-text formats
> *before* they're set in stone.

I looked at them briefly when preparing for my talk at FOSDEM and
didn't see anything that I didn't like the look of. Honestly though,
pretty much any structured format would work for us - my main concern
is that we get the extra info that we couldn't previously get because
it would bloat the text output - for example, the schema name for
every relation.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com