On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 14:42 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:04:07 -0400 > > "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>> There's still the question of whether this covers any needs that aren't > >>> met just as well by XML or CSV output formats. > >>> > >> Well, we could remove all the display formats except XML. After all, > >> it can always be converted to any other format. Of course we wouldn't > >> do that. User convenience is all I'm thinking of. > >> > > > > Well, Tom has raised a question about its need and Asko has questioned > > whether it should be under a different setting but so far no one has > > outright rejected the proposal. Does anyone else have an opinion? I am > > attaching a patch for further review. > > > > > > > In general I think I prefer machine readable formats to be produces by > the backend so they are available through all clients, not just psql.
ReST is both human-readable format and machine readable format. Where should this come from ? > That said, this has sufficiently low impact that I'm not going to be > vastly upset if we let it through. > > I think we should probably confine ourselves to output formats that are > in very wide use or we'll be supporting a vast multitude. CSV and XML > both qualify here - not sure that ReST does. ReST is just one variant of TEXT - also a format which is in very wide use :) I mean, XML is just a meta-format, like TEXT, unless we start to formalize our XML, provide DTD-s, etc. ---------------- Hannu -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers