Re: psql command for bytea output

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)pgexperts(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: psql command for bytea output
Date: 2011-10-21 20:27:58
Message-ID: 16174.1319228878@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2011/10/21 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)pgexperts(dot)com>:
>> On 10/21/2011 02:44 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> isn't better to fix current tools to work well with bytea?

>> Such as?

> some like
> \copy ... to foo.bin format binary

No, because COPY BINARY will emit its own sort of wrappers around the
data.

What I don't like about Andrew's proposal is that it seems rather
limited. Why bytea in particular? Text chunks could probably also use
a direct output method. And what about input?

Could we do anything with a notion of a COPY RAW mode, that would dump
or read the data without any header, column, or row separators? On
input I suppose you'd have to restrict it to one column --- on output,
we could leave re-dividing the data to the user's ingenuity ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-10-21 20:37:16 Re: [PATCH] Log crashed backend's query v3
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-10-21 20:24:12 Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?