Re: [PATCHES] WIP patch - INSERT-able log statements

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Tom Lane wrote:

> Why is this still under discussion? I thought we'd agreed that COPY
> format was the way to go.

Joshua Drake said "COPY would be a good option, but INSERT is probably
what I would use as the default. The most use I see for this is something
where I am tailing out the log and inserting live into a log db..." and I
completely agreed with him--that's also how all the applications I'd like
to build around this feature are expected to operate. No one said
anything else on this topic to defend COPY as the right choice until you
just brought it back up here.

The arguments for COPY are performance and that you don't need to specify
the table name. INSERT is slower and you need a name, but it's easier to
build a UNIX tool style pipeline to import it in real-time.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD