| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY |
| Date: | 2012-11-14 16:50:56 |
| Message-ID: | 50A3CBF0.50205@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/14/2012 11:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Yeah, I agree, although the syntax looks a bit unclean.
> Oh, I had not looked at the syntax closely. I agree, that basically
> sucks: it's overcomplicated and under-featured, because you can't
> control the actual program command line very conveniently. Nor do I see
> a reason to force this into the model of "program filtering a specific
> file". What happened to the previous proposal of treating the COPY
> target as a pipe specification, ie
>
> COPY table FROM 'some command line |';
> COPY table TO '| some command line';
>
I'd like to be able to filter STDIN if possible - with this syntax how
is COPY going to know to hook up STDIN to the program?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-14 16:56:57 | Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-11-14 16:48:51 | Re: [PATCH] Patch to compute Max LSN of Data Pages |