Re: YAML Was: CommitFest status/management

Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> If the problem is supporting 2 formats in core rather than 3, what about
> replacing the current JSON support with the YAML one?
>
That's a step backwards. By providing JSON format, we've also satisfied
people who want YAML. Ripping out JSON would mean we *only* support
YAML. There are far many more JSON parsers than YAML parsers, which is
why I thought the current code committed was good enough.

Anyway, the fact that I have a technical opinion suggests to me I've
caught up with the discussion now, so let's talk about where we're at.
I think that the ongoing discussion here is likely to consume more
resources than the expected future maintenance of this small bit of
code. I believe the following to be true:

-The patch is small to apply
-It would also be easy to remove in the future should a more modular
EXPLAIN implementation replace it
-Having one more "legacy" format to satisfy would actually improve the
odds that a future modular EXPLAIN would be robustly designed
-There is no way a modular explain will be written any time soon
-While it's questionable whether it's strictly a majority on voting
here, it's close, which suggests there is plenty of support for wanting
this feature
-Since nothing is removed the people who aren't in favor of this format
aren't negatively impacted by it being committed

All that suggests to me that we've cleared the usual "do we want it?"
hurdles that would normally go along with deciding whether a patch
should go to a committer or not. That leaves code quality then. Are
there any open issues with that? There's some notes about line-breaks
in the CF app. Once we have a patch with those issues resolved, this
should go to a committer for final veto power on its inclusion, and then
we're done here.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.com