From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: COPY enhancements |
Date: | 2009-09-10 22:34:36 |
Message-ID: | 9615.1252622076@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Yes, and GUCs allow users to retrofit this approach onto existing
> infrastructure without changing their COPY commands. So there's
> advantages and disadvantages. My question was really for the -hackers
> at large: is this the design we want? Or, more directly, is the GUC
> approach anathema to anyone?
Half a dozen interrelated GUCs to control a single command fairly
screams "bad design" to me; especially the ones that specifically bear
on the command semantics, rather than being performance settings that
you could reasonably have system-wide defaults for. Could we please
look at doing it via COPY options instead?
It might be time to switch COPY over to a more easily extensible
option syntax, such as we just adopted for EXPLAIN.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2009-09-10 23:28:57 | Re: COPY enhancements |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-09-10 22:11:03 | Re: COPY enhancements |