| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <drfarina(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <dfarina(at)truviso(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION |
| Date: | 2009-11-26 07:22:10 |
| Message-ID: | 1259220130.19289.508.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 00:35 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On Wed, November 25, 2009 3:56 pm, Jeff Davis wrote:
> >
> > I worry that we're getting further away from the original problem. Let's
> > allow functions to get the bytes of data from a COPY, like the original
> > proposal. I am not sure COPY is the best mechanism to move records
> > around when INSERT ... SELECT already does that.
> >
>
>
> I am not at all sure I think that's a good idea, though. We have
> pg_read_file() for getting raw bytes from files. Building that into COPY
> does not strike me as a good fit.
I think we're in agreement. All I mean is that the second argument to
COPY should produce/consume bytes and not records. I'm not discussing
the internal implementation at all, only semantics.
In other words, STDIN is not a source of records, it's a source of
bytes; and likewise for STDOUT.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-11-26 07:26:15 | Re: Spontaneous PITR standby activiation |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-26 07:18:55 | Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION |