From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Ragged CSV import |
Date: | 2009-09-10 14:09:23 |
Message-ID: | 23048.1252591763@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I am fuzzy on the implementation details for making COPY act as a data
> source for INSERT/SELECT though. I had thought to make EXPLAIN a data
> source, but it turned out not to be possible (as far as I could tell)
> without making EXPLAIN a fully-reserved word, which you vetoed. It
> seems likely that COPY will present similar issues, though I haven't
> tried.
IIRC the previous discussion touched on making it look like a
set-returning function, although this would be a shade less convenient
for option parsing etc.
> I am also wondering what happens when someone embeds multiple COPY
> statements in a single query, or sticks one inside of a CTE or on the
> inner side of a left join.
Yeah, it would need to be restricted somehow. A straight SRF function
would materialize its result, but I doubt we want that to happen for
COPY.
(This brings up the whole question of performance impact, which would
have to be thought about and minimized.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-10 14:11:14 | Re: Ragged CSV import |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-09-10 14:06:55 | Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types |