Re: generic options for explain - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: generic options for explain
Date
Msg-id 3612.1243264944@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: generic options for explain  (Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: generic options for explain  (Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com>)
Re: generic options for explain  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Joshua Tolley <eggyknap@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm not sure I see why it would be less flexible. I'm imagining we define some
> record type, and a function that returns a set of those records.

I'm unimpressed by the various proposals to change EXPLAIN into a
function.  Quoting the command-to-explain is going to be a pain in the
neck.  And can you really imagine using it manually, especially if it
returns so many fields that you *have to* write out the list of fields
you actually want, else the result is unreadable?  It's going to be just
as much of something you can only use through a helper application as
the XML way would be.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Meskes
Date:
Subject: Re: Warnings in compile
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Warnings in compile