On 01/15/2011 11:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>>> What's your suggestion, then?
>> If there's a practical way to add the requested escape, add it to the
>> text format and leave reengineering the CSV format for another day.
>> Yeah, I know that's not the most beautiful solution in the world, but
>> we're doing engineering here, not theology.
> Well, the original patch was exactly that. But I don't agree with that
> approach; I think allowing the capabilities of text and CSV logs to
> diverge significantly would be a mistake. If a piece of information is
> valuable enough to need a way to include it in textual log entries,
> then you need a way to include it in CSV log entries too. If it's not
> valuable enough to do the work to support it in CSV, then we can live
> without it.
>
>
Yeah, I agree, that's exactly the kind of divergence we usually try to
avoid. And it's hardly theology to say let's not do a half-assed job on
this.
cheers
andrew
