From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Golub <pavel(at)microolap(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: raw output from copy |
Date: | 2015-07-02 15:41:36 |
Message-ID: | 55955BB0.404@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/02/2015 11:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Does the COPY line protocol even support binary data?
> The protocol, per se, just transmits a byte stream. There is a field
> in the CopyInResponse/CopyOutResponse messages that indicates whether
> a text or binary copy is being done. One thing we'd have to consider
> is whether "raw" mode is sufficiently different from binary to justify
> an additional value for this field, and if so whether that constitutes
> a protocol break.
>
> IIRC, psql wouldn't really care; it just transfers the byte stream to or
> from the target file, regardless of text or binary mode. But there might
> be other client libraries that are smarter and expect "binary" mode to
> mean the binary file format specified in the COPY reference page. So
> there may be value in being explicit about "raw" mode in these messages.
>
> A key point in all this is that people who need "raw" transfer probably
> need it in both directions, a point that your SELECT proposal cannot
> satisfy, but hacking COPY could. So I lean towards the latter really.
>
>
OK, let's do that. I await the result with interest.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-07-02 15:46:25 | Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-07-02 15:40:05 | Re: Information of pg_stat_ssl visible to all users |