| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Farina <drfarina(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <dfarina(at)truviso(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION |
| Date: | 2009-11-25 08:23:20 |
| Message-ID: | 162867790911250023t10503a83qa143955e148c9dc9@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2009/11/25 Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>:
> On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 07:36 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> > Moving records from a function to a table can be done with:
>> > INSERT INTO mytable SELECT * FROM myfunc();
>> > And that already works fine.
>>
>> It works, but COPY FROM myfunc() should be significantly faster. You
>> can skip tuple store.
>
> If SRFs use a tuplestore in that situation, it sounds like that should
> be fixed. Why do we need to provide alternate syntax involving COPY?
It isn't problem of SRF function design. It allow both mode - row and
tuplestor. This is problem of INSERT statement, resp. INSERT INTO
SELECT implementation.
Regards
Pavel
>
> Regards,
> Jeff Davis
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2009-11-25 08:34:32 | Re: SE-PgSQL patch review |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-25 08:23:13 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |