Re: generic options for explain

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