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 |
| 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: