From: Tom Lane on
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> writes:
> +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.

If the spec is in flux, that seems like More Than Sufficient reason
to reject the patch for the time being. It can be resubmitted when
it's no longer shooting at a moving target.

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: "Greg Sabino Mullane" on

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160


> If the spec is in flux, that seems like More Than Sufficient reason
> to reject the patch for the time being. It can be resubmitted when
> it's no longer shooting at a moving target.

Saying that it is in flux is a bit of a stretch. Even if it were, the
parts that do change are nothing that will affect us. We're doing
dirt-simple YAML (and JSON) generation. Basically, 'name: value' pairs
plus some list building via indents and dashes. I'm completely not
worried about our usage ever falling afoul of future YAML or JSON
spec changes.

(This goes for the person on this list concerned about the output
being too hard to parse. Yes, YAML has lots of tiny corner cases
and elaborate syntax, but we're not using any of those, so parsing
should be quite possible for any YAML parser out there).

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(a)turnstep.com
End Point Corporation
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200912081104
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAkseeZQACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjNlACg3j5zNPnGzNiXtRG0r9OZnlY3
qjkAoOvzcq+S9qLGQIMbZ0BH55P+TtH/
=icE3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



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