| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Ragged CSV import |
| Date: | 2009-09-11 15:35:58 |
| Message-ID: | 21020.1252683358@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:
> Well, I think the objection was that it would slow COPY down to have to
> go though the executor in the copy-as-source scenario. But maybe that
> would happen anyway, and maybe we don't care, we'd just accept that it
> wouldn't be nearly as fast as a raw copy.
I haven't heard complaints about the COPY (query) syntax, which is
the same thing in the opposite direction. You can't expect that
flexibility costs zero.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-11 15:37:33 | Re: COPY enhancements |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-11 15:34:04 | Re: COPY enhancements |