Re: raw output from copy
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: raw output from copy |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 55C28982.9060406@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: raw output from copy (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>) |
Ответы |
Re: raw output from copy
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/05/2015 04:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 07/27/2015 02:28 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> 2015-07-27 10:41 GMT+02:00 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>: >> >>> What about input? This is a whole new feature, but it would be nice >>> to be >>> able to pass the file contents as a query parameter. Something like: >>> >>> \P /tmp/foo binary >>> INSERT INTO foo VALUES (?); >> >> The example of input is strong reason, why don't do it via inserts. Only >> parsing some special "?" symbol needs lot of new code. > > Sorry, I meant $1 in place of the ?. No special parsing needed, psql > can send the query to the server as is, with the parameters that are > given by this new mechanism. > >> In this case, I don't see any advantage of psql based solution. COPY is >> standard interface for input/output from/to files, and it should be used >> there. > > I'm not too happy with the COPY approach, although I won't object is > one of the other committers feel more comfortable with it. However, we > don't seem to be making progress here, so I'm going to mark this as > Returned with Feedback. I don't feel good about that either, because I > don't actually have any great suggestions on how to move this forward. > Which is a pity because this is a genuine problem for users. > > This is really only a psql problem, IMNSHO. Inserting and extracting binary data is pretty trivial for most users of client libraries (e.g. it's a couple of lines of code in a DBD::Pg program), but it's hard in psql. I do agree that the COPY approach feels more than a little klunky. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: