On 01/15/2011 11:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas<robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan<and...@dunslane.net> wrote:
What's your suggestion, then?
If there's a practical way to add the requested escape, add it to the
text format and leave reengineering the CSV format for another day.
Yeah, I know that's not the most beautiful solution in the world, but
we're doing engineering here, not theology.
Well, the original patch was exactly that. But I don't agree with that
approach; I think allowing the capabilities of text and CSV logs to
diverge significantly would be a mistake. If a piece of information is
valuable enough to need a way to include it in textual log entries,
then you need a way to include it in CSV log entries too. If it's not
valuable enough to do the work to support it in CSV, then we can live
without it.
Yeah, I agree, that's exactly the kind of divergence we usually try to
avoid. And it's hardly theology to say let's not do a half-assed job on
this.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
