| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY |
| Date: | 2012-11-14 16:39:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20745.1352911184@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Yeah, I agree, although the syntax looks a bit unclean.
Oh, I had not looked at the syntax closely. I agree, that basically
sucks: it's overcomplicated and under-featured, because you can't
control the actual program command line very conveniently. Nor do I see
a reason to force this into the model of "program filtering a specific
file". What happened to the previous proposal of treating the COPY
target as a pipe specification, ie
COPY table FROM 'some command line |';
COPY table TO '| some command line';
> Not sure what we'd do for \copy though.
Adding a pipe symbol to the target works exactly the same for \copy.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-11-14 16:46:54 | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-11-14 16:36:02 | Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY |