2009/8/5 Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com>: > David Fetter wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:06:37PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: >> > >> > > If that's what we're trying to solve, I don't think that adding >> > > some kind of proprietary shorthand coding is a good idea. If >> > > we're do to this at all, it should be a connection-based GUC >> > > option, and use some standard formal like XML fragments. >> > >> > +1 to this idea in general, > > I think the train left the station on this issue quite a while ago. The > error messages have been like they are now for six releases. I don't > have any use for changing the format. > > Clients can produce XML or JSON or whatever format you like already > anyway. The protocol is perfectly defined already.
+1 really, I don't like to parse "any" text again to get this info. Pavel > > -- > Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ > PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
