| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Hans-J?rgen Sch?nig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Paolo Magnoli <pmagnoli(at)systemevolution(dot)it>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, eg(at)cybertec(dot)at |
| Subject: | Re: R: feature proposal ... |
| Date: | 2005-09-22 20:39:10 |
| Message-ID: | 4333166E.4020808@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>So why not do what everyone is agreed on now?
>>
>>
>
>I wasn't agreed on it ;-)
>
>The primary objection I've got is that I think this will be a very
>considerable increment of work for exactly zero increment in
>functionality, compared to being able to copy from a view. (If you're
>not seeing why, consider that COPY is a utility statement not an
>optimizable statement; you'd have to change that classification, with
>resultant impacts all across the system.) There are other places
>where the effort could be more usefully spent.
>
>
>
>
By "what everyone is agreed on" I meant "copy from a view". ;-)
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-09-22 21:01:24 | PCTFree Results |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2005-09-22 20:36:46 | Re: R: feature proposal ... |