On 9 June 2010 20:56, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Hmm. Well it's quite subjective, but IMO it's already more readable
>>> than JSON regardless of whether or not values are quoted, simply
>>> because it doesn't have [ ] and { } for lists and maps, which for JSON
>>> adds significantly to the number of lines in longer plans.
>>
>> Yeah. Also, I think it would be fair to not quote values that are known
>> constants (for example, Node Type: Seq Scan) and are chosen to not need
>> quoting. It's just the things that are variables that worry me.
>
> Passing down information about which things are known constants seems
> more complicated to me than just getting the quoting rules right in
> the first place. If you look at the patch I proposed, you'll see that
> it's really quite simple and only a slight tightening of what I
> committed already.
>
Reading the YAML spec, I've just spotted yet another case that'll
break what you're proposing: if you don't quote "true" and "false",
the parser will think they're booleans rather than strings.
This is really why I'm opposed to this approach. There are just so
many gotchas that it's impossible to be 100% sure that you've
accounted for them all.
Regards,
Dean
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
