On 02/21/2015 09:39 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 02/21/2015 05:04 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's a good point. I have zero desire to open-code a format
>> though, I think that's a bad idea. We could say we just include
>> Yaml::Tiny, that's what it's made for.
>>
>
>
> Personally, I think I would prefer that we use JSON (and yes, there's
> a JSON::Tiny module, which definitely lives up to its name).
>
> For one thing, we've made a feature of supporting JSON, so arguably we
> should eat the same dog food.
>
> I also dislike YAML's line oriented format. I'd like to be able to add
> a pg_proc entry in a handful of lines instead of 29 or more (pg_proc
> has 27 attributes, but some of them are arrays, and there's an oid and
> in most cases a description to add as well). We could reduce that
> number by defaulting some of the attributes (pronamespace, proowner
> and prolang, for example) and possibly infering others (pronargs?).
> Even so it's going to take up lots of lines of vertical screen real
> estate. A JSON format could be more vertically compact. The price for
> that is that JSON strings have to be quoted, which I know lots of
> people hate.
>
>
Followup:
The YAML spec does support explicit flows like JSON, which would
overcome my objections above, but unfortunately these are not supported
by YAML::Tiny.
cheers
andrew
