Re: generic options for explain

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Greg Stark <greg.stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> So the real elephant in the room is that the existing explain code is
>> not really designed to be extensible, configurable, or to be printed
>> in different formats.
>
> These are implementation details ;-).  Let's get a definition that
> everyone can sign off on, and then worry about what has to be done
> to the code to make it happen.  Even if we end up throwing away and
> rewriting all of explain.c, that's not *that* much code.

I'm actually not sure there's a whole lot to hash out... I was going
to take a crack at writing some code.

...Robert