From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Shigeru HANADA <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: exposing COPY API |
Date: | 2011-02-09 17:45:35 |
Message-ID: | 4D52D2BF.1000908@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/09/2011 12:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Shigeru HANADA
> <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:49:36 -0500
>> Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Shigeru HANADA
>>> <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>>>> I'll submit revised file_fdw patch after removing IsForeignTable()
>>>> catalog lookup along Heikki's proposal.
>>> So I'm a bit confused. I don't see the actual copy API change patch
>>> anywhere here. Are we close to getting something committed there?
>> I'm sorry but I might have missed your point...
>>
>> I replied here to answer to Itagaki-san's mention about typos in
>> file_fdw patch.
>>
>> Or, would you mean that file_fdw should not depend on "copy API change"
>> patch?
> I mean that this thread is entitled "exposing copy API", and I'm
> wondering when and if the patch to expose the COPY API is going to be
> committed.
Itagaki-san published a patch for this about about 12 hours ago in the
file_fdw thread that looks pretty committable to me.
This whole API thing is a breakout from file_fdw, because the original
file_fdw submission copied huge chunks of copy.c instead of trying to
leverage it.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-02-09 18:09:40 | Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1 |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-09 17:28:45 | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |