On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> Revised patch attached. I'm not convinced this is as good as it can >> be, but I've been looking at this patch for so long that I'm starting >> to get cross-eyed, and I'd like to Tom at least have a look at this >> and assess it before we run out of CommitFest. > > Committed after significant hacking to try to make the format > abstraction layer a tad more complete.
Looks nice, thank you. > There are still some open issues: > > * I still think we need a written spec for the non-text output formats. > One of the problems with machine reading of the text format is you have > to reverse-engineer what the possibilities are, and this patch hasn't > made that better. A list of the possible fields, and the possible > values for those fields that have finite domains, would be a start. Where would we put this in the documentation? Seems like it might need a new section/chapter somewhere. > * There are some decisions that seem a bit questionable to me, like > using "Parent Relationship" tags rather than having the child plans > as labeled attributes of the parent node. But I can't really evaluate > this for lack of experience with designing XML/JSON structures. That would work for XML, but I think it doesn't for JSON. > * As already noted, the URL for the XML schema seems questionable. > I think that versioning should go more like v1, v2, ... instead of > being tied to a year. Or what about being based on the major PostgreSQL major version? Would it be lame to think about something like http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.5/static/sql-explain.html ? > * I complained earlier that I thought dumping expressions as text > was pretty bogus --- it'll leave anything that's trying to > do analysis in depth still having to parse complicated stuff. > I don't know exactly what I want instead, but at the very least it > seems like the variables used in an expression ought to be more > readily available. > > Anyway, it's committed so that people can play with it. We're a > lot more likely to get feedback if people actually try to use the > feature. Awesome. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
