| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Lee Kindness <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY syntax |
| Date: | 2002-10-18 03:16:40 |
| Message-ID: | 14131.1034911000@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Well, I am the first to agree that the current syntax is not well
> designed, but I must admit that I don't quite see what benefit simply
> adding "TABLE" would have.
I think the idea was that "COPY TABLE ..." could have a new clean syntax
without the warts of the current syntax. TABLE wouldn't be a noise word,
but a trigger for a different syntax for what follows.
However, COPY's feature set is inherently pretty wart-y. Even if we had
a green field to design syntax in, where exactly is the improvement
going to come, assuming that functionality has to stay the same?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-10-18 03:18:19 | Re: Postgresql and multithreading |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-18 02:39:02 | Re: default namespace (schema) confusion |