Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Invalid YAML output from EXPLAIN

2010-06-08 Thread Florian Weimer
* Greg Smith: > Florian Weimer wrote: >> It has been claimed before that YAML is a superset of JSON, so why >> can't the YAML folks use the existing JSON output instead? >> > > Because JSON just crosses the line where it feels like there's so much > markup that people expect a tool is necessary

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Invalid YAML output from EXPLAIN

2010-06-07 Thread Greg Smith
Tom Lane wrote: This doesn't look amazingly unlike the current JSON output, and to the extent that we have to add more quoting to it, it's going to look even more like the JSON output. I don't know about that; here's the JSON one: EXPLAIN (FORMAT JSON) SELECT * FROM customers WHERE customer

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Invalid YAML output from EXPLAIN

2010-06-07 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Smith writes: > The complaints about YAML taking up too much vertical space are > understandable, but completely opposite of what I care about. I can > e-mail a customer a YAML plan and it will survive to the other side and > even in a reply back to me. Whereas any non-trivial text forma

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Invalid YAML output from EXPLAIN

2010-06-07 Thread Greg Smith
Florian Weimer wrote: It has been claimed before that YAML is a superset of JSON, so why can't the YAML folks use the existing JSON output instead? Because JSON just crosses the line where it feels like there's so much markup that people expect a tool is necessary to read it, which has alw

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Invalid YAML output from EXPLAIN

2010-06-07 Thread Florian Weimer
* Tom Lane: > Egad ... this is supposed to be an easily machine-generatable format? Perhaps you could surround all strings with "" in the generator, and escape all potentially special characters (which seems to include some whitespace even in quoted strings, unfortunately)? It has been claimed b

Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Invalid YAML output from EXPLAIN

2010-06-07 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: Tom Lane wrote: I don't think the above would be particularly hard to implement myself, but if it becomes a really big deal, we can certainly punt by simply quoting anything containing an indicator (the special