On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I sort of assumed we might get some feedback from pgadmin or other
>>> tool writers between the time this was committed six months ago and
>>> now, but I haven't seen a single message from anyone who has actually
>>> tried to write a tool. As you imply, I think it will be very hard to
>>> change the format once this is released. At this point I think we may
>>> be stuck with using this format and hoping that it doesn't suck too
>>> badly.
>>
>> We can still hope that some feedback comes in during beta. I think we
>> should be willing to adjust the output schema even late in beta, if
>> someone proposes a better idea.
>
> I'm not opposed to that in principal, but in practice the PGadmin
> folks may not like us very much if we change things too drastically if
> they've got it working the way we had it... we'll just have to see
> what reports we get, I suppose.
We're not planning to reimplement our existing parser for this release
so it won't bother us if you want to bash about any of the new
formats.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
