Re: COPY enhancements

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: COPY enhancements
Date: 2009-09-10 22:34:36
Message-ID: 9615.1252622076@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Yes, and GUCs allow users to retrofit this approach onto existing
> infrastructure without changing their COPY commands. So there's
> advantages and disadvantages. My question was really for the -hackers
> at large: is this the design we want? Or, more directly, is the GUC
> approach anathema to anyone?

Half a dozen interrelated GUCs to control a single command fairly
screams "bad design" to me; especially the ones that specifically bear
on the command semantics, rather than being performance settings that
you could reasonably have system-wide defaults for. Could we please
look at doing it via COPY options instead?

It might be time to switch COPY over to a more easily extensible
option syntax, such as we just adopted for EXPLAIN.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2009-09-10 23:28:57 Re: COPY enhancements
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2009-09-10 22:11:03 Re: COPY enhancements