From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: COPY Transform support |
Date: | 2008-04-08 16:24:59 |
Message-ID: | 47FB9C5B.6010004@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> Could we make each COPY target
>> behave like an SRF, stashing its data in a tuplestore?
>>
>
> The first question is what is the wire-protocol definition. In
> particular, how would the client know what order to send the COPY
> datasets in, if a single query might include multiple COPY FROM STDIN
> segments?
>
> Another point is that we surely don't want the implementation to force
> use of a tuplestore all the time, so I'm not sure I buy that we can
> prevent interleaving of multiple datasets on the wire that way.
>
>
>
Is there a big demand for multiple datasets on the wire in a situation
like this? How about if we allow multiple COPY targets but at most one
from STDIN, at least for one go round?
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-04-08 16:25:28 | temp tables should not have pg_shdepend entries |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-08 16:11:24 | Re: COPY Transform support |