Re: the case for machine-readable error fields

On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:06:37PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
> 
> 
> > If that's what we're trying to solve, I don't think that adding
> > some kind of proprietary shorthand coding is a good idea.  If
> > we're do to this at all, it should be a connection-based GUC
> > option, and use some standard formal like XML fragments.
> 
> +1 to this idea in general, but *please* don't consider the use of
> XML.  If we really need some sort of formatting, let's do CSV.  Or
> YAML.  Or JSON.  Anything but XML.

+1 on the "anything but XML."  XML reeks of inner platform effect.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner-platform_effect>

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate