David Fetter wrote: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:06:37PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > > > > 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,
I think the train left the station on this issue quite a while ago. The error messages have been like they are now for six releases. I don't have any use for changing the format. Clients can produce XML or JSON or whatever format you like already anyway. The protocol is perfectly defined already. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
