From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: COPY enhancements |
Date: | 2009-09-10 23:28:57 |
Message-ID: | 20090910232857.GN20190@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 06:34:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
+1 :)
Cheers,
David (still working on that windowing bug)
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-09-10 23:29:27 | Re: COPY enhancements |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-10 22:34:36 | Re: COPY enhancements |