David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:06:37PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> >
> > > If that's what we're trying to solve, I don't think that adding
> > > some kind of proprietary shorthand coding is a good idea. If
> > > we're do to this at all, it should be a connection-based GUC
> > > option, and use some standard formal like XML fragments.
> >
> > +1 to this idea in general,
I think the train left the station on this issue quite a while ago. The
error messages have been like they are now for six releases. I don't
have any use for changing the format.
Clients can produce XML or JSON or whatever format you like already
anyway. The protocol is perfectly defined already.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
