Re: raw output from copy

On 03/28/2016 06:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
>> [ copy-raw-format-20160227-03.patch ]
> I looked at this patch.  I'm having a hard time accepting that it has
> a use-case large enough to justify it, and here's the reason: it's
> a protocol break.  Conveniently omitting to update protocol.sgml
> doesn't make it not a protocol break.  (libpq.sgml also contains
> assorted statements that are falsified by this patch.)
>
> You could argue that it's the user's own fault if he tries to use
> COPY RAW with client-side code that hasn't been updated to support it.
> Maybe that's okay, but I wonder if we're opening ourselves up to
> problems.  Maybe even security-grade problems.
>
> In terms of specific code that hasn't been updated, ecpg is broken
> by this patch, and I'm not very sure what libpq's PQbinaryTuples()
> ought to do but probably something other than what it does today.
>
> There's also a definitional question of what we think PQfformat() ought
> to do; should it return "2" for the per-field format?  Or maybe the
> per-field format is still "1", since it's after all the same binary data
> format as for COPY BINARY, and only the overall copy format reported by
> PQbinaryTuples() should change to "2".
>
> BTW, I'm not really sure why the patch is trying to enforce single
> row and column for the COPY OUT case.  I thought the idea for that
> was that we'd just shove out the data without any delimiters, and
> if it's more than one datum it's the user's problem whether he can
> identify the boundaries.  On the input side we would have to insist
> on one column since we're not going to attempt to identify boundaries
> (and one row would fall out of the fact that we slurp the entire input
> and treat it as one datum).
>
> Anyway this is certainly not committable as-is, so I'm setting it back
> to Waiting on Author.  But the fact that both libpq and ecpg would need
> updates makes me question whether we can safely pretend that this isn't
> a protocol break.
>
>             


In that case I humbly submit that there is a case for reviving the psql 
patch I posted that kicked off this whole thing and lets you export a 
piece of binary data from psql quite easily. It should certainly not 
involve any protocol break.

cheers

andrew