Re: FDW API: don't like the EXPLAIN mechanism
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: FDW API: don't like the EXPLAIN mechanism |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 14889.1298305416@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: FDW API: don't like the EXPLAIN mechanism (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: FDW API: don't like the EXPLAIN mechanism
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > On 02/19/2011 11:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> However, it occurs to me that as long as we're passing the function the >> ExplainState, it has what it needs to add arbitrary EXPLAIN result >> fields. > If we allow the invention of new explain states we'll never be able to > publish an authoritative schema definition of the data. That's not > necessarily an argument against doing it, just something to be aware of. > Maybe we don't care about having EXPLAIN XML output validated. I thought one of the principal arguments for outputting XML/etc formats was exactly that we'd be able to add fields without breaking readers. If that's not the case, why did we bother? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: