Re: Split copy.c

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Split copy.c
Date: 2020-11-02 17:43:38
Message-ID: 57259272-fbc8-c318-eea9-88cb98e21527@iki.fi
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 02/11/2020 19:23, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-11-02 11:03:29 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> There isn't much common code between COPY FROM and COPY TO, so I propose
>> that we split copy.c into two: copyfrom.c and copyto.c. See attached. I thin
>> that's much nicer.
>
> Not quite convinced that's the right split - or perhaps there's just
> more potential. My feeling is that splitting out all the DML related
> code would make the code considerably easier to read.

What do you mean by DML related code?

- Heikki

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Anastasia Lubennikova 2020-11-02 17:45:37 Re: RE: Delaying/avoiding BTreeTupleGetNAtts() call within _bt_compare()
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-11-02 17:42:26 Re: public schema default ACL