| From: | Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)asterdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Emmanuel Cecchet <Emmanuel(dot)Cecchet(at)asterdata(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: generic copy options |
| Date: | 2009-09-17 13:00:33 |
| Message-ID: | 4AB232F1.9020207@asterdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> Well, I wonder how many users just upgrade psql vs upgrade the server. I was
>> thinking that when users perform a database upgrade their application often
>> remain the same and therefore the server needs to support the old syntax.
>> Unless you are upgrading a machine where a bunch of psql-based scripts are
>> running to update various remote Postgres instances with older versions, I
>> would guess that it is unlikely that someone is going to upgrade psql and
>> keep the old instance of the server on the same machine.
>> I just wonder how many users are using a single psql to manage multiple
>> server instances of different older versions.
>>
>
> What application, that use current copy format for fast data import? I
> thing, so doing incompatible changes of copy statement syntax is very
> bad idea.
>
The old syntax is still supported in both psql and the server but I am
not sure how many applications are relying on psql to perform a copy
operation (actually a \copy).
manu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-17 13:26:02 | Re: Linux LSB init script |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-09-17 12:05:09 | Re: generic copy options |