| From: | "Daniel Verite" <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,"Fabien COELHO" <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>,"PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>,"David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative to \copy in psql modelled after \g |
| Date: | 2019-01-18 21:31:30 |
| Message-ID: | 436e2071-2fc8-4fbd-be3e-df06befd5855@manitou-mail.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I took a quick look at this patch.
PFA an updated patch addressing your comments and Fabien's.
I've also changed handleCopyOut() to return success if it
could pump the data without writing it out locally for lack of
an output stream. It seems to make more sense like that.
While adding the note to the doc I've noticed that the other \copy
tip says:
"This operation is not as efficient as the SQL COPY command because
all data must pass through the client/server connection. For large
amounts of data the SQL command might be preferable.
It doesn't specify that it's for COPY TO/FROM file, not COPY TO
STDOUT/FROM STDIN. Of course the latter would rank the same as \copy
with respect to client/server throughput. Should this tip be more
specific?
Best regards,
--
Daniel Vérité
PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org
Twitter: @DanielVerite
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| psql-copyout-g-v2.patch | text/plain | 4.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2019-01-18 22:01:07 | Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD |
| Previous Message | andres@anarazel.de | 2019-01-18 21:23:30 | Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries |