Re: Ragged CSV import

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Ragged CSV import
Date: 2009-09-09 23:41:33
Message-ID: 4AA83D2D.9080304@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas wrote:
> I agree that ignoring extra columns is a bad idea, but I don't even
> like the idea of ignoring missing columns. It doesn't seem like a
> good idea to take a spreadsheet and feed it into COPY without doing
> any validation anyway, and this is the kind of thing that is trivial
> to clean up with a thin layer of Perl or your scripting language of
> choice.
>
>

If it's an optional feature then I don't see why there is a problem.
What skin is it off anyone else's nose but those whose choose this
behaviour?

I am perfectly familiar with Perl and so is the client that requested
this feature. They are quite technically savvy. They are using a
scripting solution now but they find it cumbersome.

As for general validation, the requestor's application in fact loads the
spreadsheet into a temp table of text columns and then subjects it to a
large variety of complex business rule checking before adding the data
to the main tables. It is a whole lot faster and cleaner to do it that
way than before the data is loaded at all. That's why they aren't
concerned about missing columns.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-09-09 23:46:10 Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-09-09 23:30:18 Re: Bug in aggregates in windowing context