Re: YAML

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> I was in fact prepared to commit this patch, despite some significant
>> misgivings about its wisdom, mainly because it does have such a low
>> impact. But then other people raised objections. I'm not sure how strong
>> those objections are, though.
>>
>
> The "lite" version posted by Itagaki-san on 11/30 seems short enough
> that maybe we should just stop arguing and apply it. There were some
> other versions that fooled around with existing logic, which I was a lot
> less happy about because of the difficulty of being sure that nothing
> was broken.
>

Well, I guess he can commit it himself now ;-)

> I definitely don't think we should get involved with trying to create
> support for plugin formatters or anything like that --- the amount of
> effort required seems far out of proportion to the benefit.
>
>

right.

cheers

andrew