From: | james <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: json api WIP patch |
Date: | 2013-01-08 21:31:23 |
Message-ID: | 50EC902B.70205@mansionfamily.plus.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> You can use COPY from a stored procedure, but only to and from files.
I think that's in the chocolate fireguard realm though as far as
efficiency for this sort of scenario goes, even if its handled by
retaining an mmap'd file as workspace.
>
>> If SPI provided a way to perform a copy to a temp table and then some callback on an iterator that yields rows to it, that would do the trick I guess.
>
> SPI is useful, but it's certainly possible to avoid its use. After all, that what almost the whole backend does, including the COPY code. Of course, it's a lot harder to write that way, which is part of why SPI exists. Efficiency has its price.
So it is possible to use a lower level interface from a C stored proc?
SPI is the (only) documented direct function extension API isn't it?
Is the issue with using the JSON data-to-record set that the parsing can
be costly? Perhaps it can be achieved with B64 of compressed protobuf,
or such. I don't mind if it seems a bit messy - the code can be
generated from the table easily enough, especially if I can use C++. I
guess an allocator that uses SPI_palloc would solve issues with memory
management on error?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-01-08 21:32:46 | Re: json api WIP patch |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-01-08 21:30:25 | Re: PATCH: optimized DROP of multiple tables within a transaction |