Re: COPY enhancements

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)asterdata(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: COPY enhancements
Date: 2009-09-11 21:07:15
Message-ID: 603c8f070909111407x5395a7f2mf7cdb5666fd04e2d@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Another approach would be to generalize what is allowable as an
>> optional parameter to include a parenthesized column list, but I don't
>> really think that has a lot to recommend it.
>
> Well, maybe it's worth doing.  If you believe that somebody might think
> of a new per-column COPY behavior in the future, then the same issue is
> going to come up again.

I can't immediately think of one, but I wouldn't bet against someone
else dreaming one up.

The biggest problem I have with this change is that it's going to
massively break anyone who is using the existing COPY syntax. Really
simple examples might be OK (like if they're using 0 or 1 options),
but more complex things are going to just break. How much do we care
about that?

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Creager 2009-09-11 21:10:15 Re: drop tablespace error: invalid argument
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2009-09-11 20:56:11 Re: COPY enhancements