On 06/17/2009 04:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut 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.
So, the only change from the current schema would be to do move all
additional information into attributes?
With this, visual explain would be completely trivial.
Only that some attributes may need some more structure than a single
scalar value.
Also that would need extra handling for each attribute to consider if
its a information about planning or execution...
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
