From: | "myungkyu(dot)lim" <myungkyu(dot)lim(at)samsung(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tomas Vondra'" <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "'Adam Berlin'" <berlin(dot)ab(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | "'Surafel Temesgen'" <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | RE: COPY FROM WHEN condition |
Date: | 2018-11-12 07:44:49 |
Message-ID: | 007e01d47a5b$9747ba60$c5d72f20$@samsung.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> COPY table_name WHERE (some_condition)
>>
>> Users should already be familiar with the idea that WHERE performs a filter.
>>
> So, what about using FILTER here? We already use it for aggregates when
> filtering rows to process.
> That being said, I have no strong feelings either way. I'd be OK with
> both WHEN and WHERE.
I don't think it's an important point,
In gram.y,
where_clause:
WHERE a_expr { $$ = $2; }
| /*EMPTY*/ { $$ = NULL; }
;
This is similar to the 'opt_when_clause' in this patch.
So, I think 'WHERE' is a better form.
BTW, 3rd patch worked very well in my tests.
However, some wrong code style still exists.
Node *whenClause= NULL;
cstate->whenClause=whenClause;
Best regards,
Myungkyu, Lim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Naylor | 2018-11-12 07:50:30 | doc fix for pg_stat_activity.backend_type |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-11-12 07:34:18 | Re: New function pg_stat_statements_reset_query() to reset statistics of a specific query |