| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: generic options for explain |
| Date: | 2009-05-26 12:31:02 |
| Message-ID: | 937d27e10905260531u690d74c3w552bb05a73b43ae7@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> I think we are going in the wrong direction. No one has said that they want a
> machine-readable EXPLAIN format. OK, there are historically about three
> people that want one, but they have already solved the problem of parsing the
> current format.
Pretty sure I've said I want one. And whilst it's true, we already
parse the current output in pgAdmin, it's a PITA whenever the format
changes. I also want a format in which Tom is not going to refuse to
include additional data (such as the schema a relation is in) because
it clutters the output. A machine readable format would seem to the
idea way to include all data we may need, without making
human-readable output an unreadable mess.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-26 12:44:46 | Re: generic options for explain |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-05-26 12:28:05 | Re: generic options for explain |