Hi, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >> The main point here for me is that the JSON format is already >> parseable by YAML parsers, and can probably be turned into YAML using >> a very short Perl script - possibly even using a sed script. I think >> that it's overkill to support two formats that are that similar. >> > It's not the case that JSON can be turned into YAML or that it just happens > that it can be parsed by YAML parsers. While there was some possible > divergence in earlier versions, a JSON 1.2 document *is* in YAML format > already. JSON is actually a subset of YAML that uses one of the many > possible YAML styles--basically, YAML accepts anything in JSON format, along > with others. This means that by providing JSON output, we've *already* > provided YAML output, too. Just not the nice looking output people tend to > associate with YAML.
Well we have JSON and agreed it was a good idea to have it. Now JSON is a subset of YAML and some would prefer another YAML style (me included). If the problem is supporting 2 formats in core rather than 3, what about replacing the current JSON support with the YAML one? At a later point we could even have JSON support back by having the YAML printer able to output different YAML styles, but I guess that's not where we are now. Vote: +1 for YAML even if that means dropping JSON. Regards, -- dim -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
