On Tuesday 11 August 2009 21:59:48 Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Mike <i...@snappymail.ca> writes: > >> Have any tool authors stepped up and committed resources to utilizing > >> this feature in the near term? > > > > I don't think anyone's promised much. If you want to have a go at using > > it, we'd be very happy. > > > >> I'm guessing that my vision likely exceeds the scope of this feature in > >> its initial form at least, but assuming no one else has stepped up, I'm > >> more than willing to start committing resources as early as this > >> weekend with the understanding that this feature is still in > >> development and likely will change several times before or if its > >> finally committed for 8.5. > > > > It's definitely committed for 8.5, but the exact format of the output > > is (obviously) still subject to change. > Good. I had a look at this for a little while yesterday. I built it, did > an install, loaded auto_explain and then ran the regression tests. I > didn't like the output much. It looks like the XML has been dumbed down > to fit a data model that works for JSON as well, particularly in the > lack of use of attributes. An XML processor won't care that much, but > humans will certainly find it more tiresome to read. In effect we are > swapping horizontal expansion for vertical expansion. It would be nicer > to be able to fit a plan into a screen. The problem is that nobody yet came up with one that is easy to generate and liked by many people... Aesthetically I do not like the current schema as well, but personally I don't think it matters that much.
Everything fancy has the problem of requiring relatively much code... > I also took the last relaxng spec I could find and used a nice little > tool called Trang to translate it into an XML Schema spec. The good news > is that that worked. The bad news is that the spec almost certainly > needs some tightening, especially around those elements that probably > should be XML attributes. Unrelated to the other issues the relaxng schema has some missing pieces if I remember it correctly (constraint => constraint-name, trigger => trigger-name) I think). It is also by far not strict enough yet... Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
