On Monday 25 May 2009 18:02:53 Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > This is all much more complicated than what I proposed, and I fail to
> > see what it buys us. I'd say that you're just reinforcing the point I
> > made upthread, which is that insisting that XML is the only way to get
> > more detailed information will just create a cottage industry of
> > beating that XML output format into submission.
>
> The impression I have is that (to misquote Churchill) XML is the worst
> option available, except for all the others. We need something that can
> represent a fairly complex data structure, easily supports addition or
> removal of particular fields in the structure (including fields not
> foreseen in the original design), is not hard for programs to parse,
> and is widely supported --- ie, "not hard" includes "you don't have to
> write your own parser, in most languages". How many realistic
> alternatives are there?
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. And without having writtens such a parser myself I think that
the current format is not inherently hard to parse.
What people really want is optional additional information in the human-
readable format. Giving them a machine readable format does not solve the
problem. Giving them a machine readable format with all-or-none of the
optional information and saying "figure it out yourself" does not solve
anything either. The same people who currently complain will continue to
complain.
