| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY IN as SELECT target |
| Date: | 2009-12-17 17:42:45 |
| Message-ID: | 4183.1261071765@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> COPY RETURNING ARRAY FROM ...
> It's not really returning an array, is it? It's returning a bag of rows
> like a (sub)query.
> How about just COPY FROM?
The problem with COPY FROM is that it hard-wires a decision that there
is one and only one possible result format, which I think we pretty
much proved already is the wrong thing. I'm not thrilled with "RETURNING
ARRAY" either, but we need to leave ourselves wiggle room to have more
than one result format from the same source file.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-12-17 17:49:11 | Re: determine snapshot after obtaining locks for first statement |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-17 17:42:18 | Re: COPY IN as SELECT target |