| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Golub <pavel(at)gf(dot)microolap(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near "binary" |
| Date: | 2011-07-05 15:50:51 |
| Message-ID: | 13623.1309881051@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> ... However, if we don't do what I've proposed here,
> then I think 8.4 and 9.0 and probably 9.1 are going to need to stay as
> they are, because...
>> RH> (c) Should we consider removing compatibility with the ancient copy
>> RH> syntax in 9.2, and de-reserving that keyword? (Given that the
>> RH> workaround is this simple, I'm inclined to say "no", but could be
>> RH> persuaded otherwise.)
>>
>> +1 for this. Pre-7.3 syntax is dead in fact for many years.
> ...this is not something we're going to back-patch.
Given the lack of prior complaints, and the simplicity of the
double-quote workaround, I feel little need to have a back-patchable
fix.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Golub | 2011-07-05 16:02:13 | Re: [HACKERS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near "binary" |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-05 15:40:49 | Re: [HACKERS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near "binary" |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2011-07-05 15:57:16 | Re: testing nested case-when scoping |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-05 15:49:48 | capturing regression test core dump |