On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: >> Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes: >>> I sort of assumed we might get some feedback from pgadmin or other >>> tool writers between the time this was committed six months ago and >>> now, but I haven't seen a single message from anyone who has actually >>> tried to write a tool. As you imply, I think it will be very hard to >>> change the format once this is released. At this point I think we may >>> be stuck with using this format and hoping that it doesn't suck too >>> badly. >> >> We can still hope that some feedback comes in during beta. I think we >> should be willing to adjust the output schema even late in beta, if >> someone proposes a better idea. > > I'm not opposed to that in principal, but in practice the PGadmin > folks may not like us very much if we change things too drastically if > they've got it working the way we had it... we'll just have to see > what reports we get, I suppose.
We're not planning to reimplement our existing parser for this release so it won't bother us if you want to bash about any of the new formats. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
