| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: generic options for explain |
| Date: | 2009-05-26 13:55:55 |
| Message-ID: | 937d27e10905260655j3dec3197k5c3bccf65b74e42a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
> In libxml-enabled builds at least, this could presumably be done fairly
> easily via the XML functions, especially if we get XSLT processing into the
> core XML functionality as I hope we can do this release. In fact, the
> ability to leverage existing XML functionality to munge the output is the
> thing that swings me in favor of XML as the machine readable output format
> instead of JSON, since we don't have and aren't terribly likely to get an
> inbuilt JSON parser. It means we wouldn't need some external tool at all.
I was thinking something similar, but from the pgAdmin perspective. We
already use libxml2, but JSON would introduce another dependency for
us.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-05-26 14:05:35 | Re: problem with plural-forms |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-05-26 13:52:36 | Re: generic options for explain |