On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Peter Eisentraut<pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 16:22:27 Robert Haas wrote: >> 1. It didn't seem very wise to go with the approach of trying to do >> EVERYTHING with attributes. If I did that, then I'd either get really >> long lines that were not easily readable, or I'd have to write some >> kind of complicated line wrapping code (which didn't seem to make a >> lot of sense for a machine-readable format). The current format isn't >> the most beautiful thing I've ever seen, but you don't need a parser >> to make sense of it, just a bit of patience. > > There are obviously a lot of ways to go about defining an XML format, but here > is another one of them: > > A plan is a tree of plan nodes. Each node has some information attached to > it, such as row counts and costs. > > If you consider an XML document to be a tree of element nodes, then this falls > into place naturally. Each plan is an element, and all the other information > are attributes. > > With this, visual explain would be completely trivial.
So what do you do about things like sort keys and target lists, that the current code outputs as structured lists? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
