On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 June 2010 20:56, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Hmm. Well it's quite subjective, but IMO it's already more readable
>>>> than JSON regardless of whether or not values are quoted, simply
>>>> because it doesn't have [ ] and { } for lists and maps, which for JSON
>>>> adds significantly to the number of lines in longer plans.
>>>
>>> Yeah. Also, I think it would be fair to not quote values that are known
>>> constants (for example, Node Type: Seq Scan) and are chosen to not need
>>> quoting. It's just the things that are variables that worry me.
>>
>> Passing down information about which things are known constants seems
>> more complicated to me than just getting the quoting rules right in
>> the first place. If you look at the patch I proposed, you'll see that
>> it's really quite simple and only a slight tightening of what I
>> committed already.
>>
>
> Reading the YAML spec, I've just spotted yet another case that'll
> break what you're proposing: if you don't quote "true" and "false",
> the parser will think they're booleans rather than strings.
>
> This is really why I'm opposed to this approach. There are just so
> many gotchas that it's impossible to be 100% sure that you've
> accounted for them all.
OK, I give up.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
