Re: generic options for explain

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.
        regards, tom lane