| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 19:22:11 |
| Message-ID: | 50A3EF63.3070405@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/14/2012 02:05 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 11/14/12 11:50 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> COPY table FROM 'some command line |';
>>> COPY table TO '| some command line';
>>>
>>
>> I'd like to be able to filter STDIN if possible - with this syntax how
>> is COPY going to know to hook up STDIN to the program?
> Why don't you filter the data before it gets to stdin? Some program is
> feeding the data to "stdin" on the client side. Why doesn't that do the
> filtering? I don't see a large advantage in having the data be sent
> unfiltered to the server and having the server do the filtering.
Centralization of processing would be one obvious reason. I don't really
see why the same reasoning doesn't apply on the backend. You could just
preprocess the input before calling COPY (via a plperlu function for
example). If we're going to have filtering functionality then it should
be as general as possible, ISTM. But I seem to be alone in this, so I
won't push it.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-14 19:37:52 | Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY |
| Previous Message | Atri Sharma | 2012-11-14 19:12:27 | Re: WIP patch for hint bit i/o mitigation |