Prev: [PATCH] Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Next: Sought after architectures for the PostgreSQL buildfarm?
From: Tom Lane on 7 Dec 2009 19:43
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(a)dunslane.net> writes:
> I was in fact prepared to commit this patch, despite some significant
> misgivings about its wisdom, mainly because it does have such a low
> impact. But then other people raised objections. I'm not sure how strong
> those objections are, though.

The "lite" version posted by Itagaki-san on 11/30 seems short enough
that maybe we should just stop arguing and apply it. There were some
other versions that fooled around with existing logic, which I was a lot
less happy about because of the difficulty of being sure that nothing
was broken.

I definitely don't think we should get involved with trying to create
support for plugin formatters or anything like that --- the amount of
effort required seems far out of proportion to the benefit.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Andrew Dunstan on 7 Dec 2009 22:06


Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(a)dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> I was in fact prepared to commit this patch, despite some significant
>> misgivings about its wisdom, mainly because it does have such a low
>> impact. But then other people raised objections. I'm not sure how strong
>> those objections are, though.
>>
>
> The "lite" version posted by Itagaki-san on 11/30 seems short enough
> that maybe we should just stop arguing and apply it. There were some
> other versions that fooled around with existing logic, which I was a lot
> less happy about because of the difficulty of being sure that nothing
> was broken.
>

Well, I guess he can commit it himself now ;-)

> I definitely don't think we should get involved with trying to create
> support for plugin formatters or anything like that --- the amount of
> effort required seems far out of proportion to the benefit.
>
>

right.

cheers

andrew

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Tim Bunce on 8 Dec 2009 08:16
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 07:07:13PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Not everything is sanely convertible into some sort of plugin. A plugin
>>> mechanism for this would be FAR more trouble that it is worth, IMNSHO.
>>>
>>> We are massively over-egging this pudding (as a culinary blogger you
>>> should appreciate this analogy).
>>>
>>
>> OK, then let's just accept it. It's small, has a maintainer, is useful
>> to some people, and doesn't create any wierd complications. I think,
>> given the knowledge that YAML is now a subdialect of JSON it could
>> potentially be made smaller, but I can't say how at the moment.
>
> Actually, it's the other way, JSON is a subset of YAML.

I've no contribution to the main topic, but I'd like to point out that
the "JSON is a subset of YAML" meme is not without controversy:

http://search.cpan.org/~mlehmann/JSON-XS-2.26/XS.pm#JSON_and_YAML

It may not be relevant in your use-case, but I thought it worth a mention.

Tim.

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Andrew Dunstan on 8 Dec 2009 09:13


Tim Bunce wrote:
>
> I've no contribution to the main topic, but I'd like to point out that
> the "JSON is a subset of YAML" meme is not without controversy:
>
> http://search.cpan.org/~mlehmann/JSON-XS-2.26/XS.pm#JSON_and_YAML
>
> It may not be relevant in your use-case, but I thought it worth a mention.
>
>
>

Ouch. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Well, if we're going to commit this, as now appears likely, we should
have some language lawyers go over our code for both YAML and JSON with
a fine tooth comb to make sure what we are producing is strictly
According To Hoyle.

cheers

andrew

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Robert Haas on 8 Dec 2009 09:17
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(a)dunslane.net> wrote:
> Well, if we're going to commit this, as now appears likely, we should have
> some language lawyers go over our code for both YAML and JSON with a fine
> tooth comb to make sure what we are producing is strictly According To
> Hoyle.

+1. I'm a little concerned about the bit about the YAML specification
changing, too, but at least if we can ensure that we're compliant with
the spec that is current at the time the code goes in we have a leg to
stand on.

....Robert

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: [PATCH] Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Next: Sought after architectures for the PostgreSQL buildfarm?