From: | Daniel Farina <dfarina(at)truviso(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION |
Date: | 2009-11-24 00:25:31 |
Message-ID: | 429f3b220911231625m11f793b0u488fbb0db305ab97@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> pgsql-hackers had some preliminary discussions a couple months back
> on refactoring COPY to allow things like this --- see the thread
> starting here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-09/msg00486.php
> While I don't think we arrived at any final decisions, I would like
> to know how this design fits in with what was discussed then.
This seems to be about importing/ingress, whereas this patch is about
exporting/egress...it is an interesting question on how much parsing
to do before on the ingress side before handing a row to a function
though, should we try to make these kinds of operations a bit more
symmetrical.
I did consider refactoring COPY, but since it's never clear when we
start a feature whether it is going to manifest itself as a good
upstream candidate we default to trying to make future merges with
Postgres tractable I did not take on such a large and artistic task.
fdr
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2009-11-24 00:29:25 | Re: WIP: log query in auto-explain |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-24 00:25:09 | Re: BUG #5206: wal_sync_method in stock postgresql.conf may be wrong |