| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: COPY BINARY is broken... |
| Date: | 2000-12-10 22:34:27 |
| Message-ID: | 17592.976487667@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>>> Its handling of nulls is bizarre, too. I'm thinking this might be a
>>>> good time to abandon backwards compatibility and switch to a format
>>>> that's a little easier to read and write. Does anyone have an opinion
>>>> pro or con about that?
>>
>> BINARY COPY scared the bejeezus out of me, anyone using the interface
>> is asking for trouble and supporting it seems like a nightmare, I
>> would rip it out.
> Tom, just keep in mind that the format is documented in copy.sgml.
Not documented *correctly*, I notice. There are at least two errors,
plus the rather major omission that <tuple data> is not explained.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-12-10 23:48:22 | Re: Re: COPY BINARY file format proposal |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-10 22:26:55 | Re: memory management suggestion |