| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shigeru HANADA <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw |
| Date: | 2011-01-11 00:26:11 |
| Message-ID: | 3011.1294705571@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Shigeru HANADA <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> For the purpose of file_fdw, additional ResetCopyFrom() would be
> necessary. I'm planning to include such changes in file_fdw patch.
> Please find attached partial patch for ResetCopyFrom(). Is there
> anything else which should be done at reset?
Seems like it would be smarter to close and re-open the copy operation.
Adding a reset function is just creating an additional maintenance
burden and point of failure, for what seems likely to be a negligible
performance benefit.
If you think it's not negligible, please show some proof of that before
asking us to support such code.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-11 00:27:44 | Re: pl/python custom exceptions for SPI |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-01-11 00:25:03 | Re: Bug in pg_describe_object |