On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:02:53AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > This is all much more complicated than what I proposed, and I fail > > to see what it buys us. I'd say that you're just reinforcing the > > point I made upthread, which is that insisting that XML is the > > only way to get more detailed information will just create a > > cottage industry of beating that XML output format into > > submission. > > The impression I have is that (to misquote Churchill) XML is the > worst option available, except for all the others. We need > something that can represent a fairly complex data structure, easily > supports addition or removal of particular fields in the structure > (including fields not foreseen in the original design), is not hard > for programs to parse, and is widely supported --- ie, "not hard" > includes "you don't have to write your own parser, in most > languages". How many realistic alternatives are there?
JSON for one, and it's *much* lighter in just about every way. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
