| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: COPY enhancements |
| Date: | 2009-09-12 15:23:57 |
| Message-ID: | 5843.1252769037@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Right. What I proposed would not have been terribly invasive or
> difficult, certainly less so than what seems to be our direction by an
> order of magnitude at least. I don't for a moment accept the assertion
> that we can get a general solution for the same effort.
And at the same time, Greg's list of minimum requirements was far
longer than what you proposed to do. We can *not* just implement
those things one at a time with no thought towards what the full
solution looks like --- at least not if we want the end result to
look like it was intelligently designed, not merely accreted.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-09-12 15:44:01 | Re: COPY enhancements |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-09-12 15:13:39 | Re: COPY enhancements |