Re: COPY Transform support
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: COPY Transform support |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 47FA703A.5040808@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: COPY Transform support (Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: COPY Transform support
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Decibel! wrote: > On Apr 3, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> Several years ago Bruce and I discussed the then theoretical use of a >> SELECT query as the source for COPY TO, and we agreed that the sane >> analog would be to have an INSERT query as the target of COPY FROM. >> >> This idea seems to take that rather further. If doable I think it >> would be cool, as long as people don't try using it as an alternative >> storage engine. I can just imagine people creating views over such >> SELECT statements ... > > > Why not? There's certainly cases where doing just that could be very > valuable. Storing older information that you're less likely to query > comes to mind... in those cases you're going to be seqscanning anyway, > so being able to read off a compact on-disk form is likely to be a win > performance-wise. It could certainly be a win storage-wise. > > If someone wants to look at syntax options, I'm pretty certain that > Oracle supports this. IIRC you actually create what appears to the > database to be a real table, except for restrictions on what you can > actually do with it (for example, IIRC it's read-only). > You're serious aren't you? Quite apart from any other reason why not, this would be a horrid hack and is just the sort of "feature" we rightly eschew, IMNSHO. COPY is designed as a bulk load/unload facility. It's fragile enough in that role. If we really want to support an alternative storage engine then we should tackle that front on and not via a back door like this. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: