From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: COPY as a set returning function |
Date: | 2016-09-30 21:19:19 |
Message-ID: | 15275.1475270359@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Attached is a _very_ rough patch implementing a proof-of-concept function
> copy_srf();
> ...
> As for that future direction, we could either have:
> - a robust function named something like copy_srf(), with parameters for
> all of the relevant options found in the COPY command
> - a function that accepts an options string and parse that
> - we could alter the grammar to make COPY RETURNING col1, col3, col5 FROM
> 'filename' a legit CTE.
I think the last of those suggestions has come up before. It has the
large advantage that you don't have to remember a different syntax for
copy-as-a-function. Once you had the framework for that, other
rows-returning utility commands such as EXPLAIN might plug in as well,
whenever somebody got enough of an itch for it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-09-30 23:08:27 | Re: sloppy handling of pointers |
Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2016-09-30 21:03:00 | COPY as a set returning function |