Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20295.1352910059@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY
Re: WIP patch: add (PRE|POST)PROCESSOR options to COPY |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Simon Riggs escribi�: >> On 14 November 2012 15:09, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Here, progname for COPY IN is the user-supplied program that takes filename as >>> its argument and that writes on standard output. >> I think we should be using FDWs/SRFs here, not inventing new >> syntax/architectures for executing external code, so -1 from me. > Hmm, but then you are forced to write C code, whereas the "external > program" proposal could have you writing a only shell script instead. I disagree with Simon's objection also, because neither reading from nor writing to an external program is likely to fit the model of reading/updating a table very well. For instance, there's no good reason to suppose that reading twice will give the same results. So force-fitting this usage into the FDW model is not going to work well. Nor do I really see the argument why a "pipe_fdw" module is cleaner than a "COPY TO/FROM pipe" feature. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: