Re: [HACKERS] Performance testing of COPY (SELECT) TO
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Performance testing of COPY (SELECT) TO |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5818.1156782383@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Performance testing of COPY (SELECT) TO (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Performance testing of COPY (SELECT) TO
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > My question is, if we allow this: > copy (select * from view) to stdout; > (or to a file, whatever), is it enough for you? Or would you insist on > also having > copy view to stdout; > ? > We can, and the posted patch does, support the first form, but not the > second. In fact I deliberately removed support for the second form for > Zolt�n's patch because it uglifies the surrounding code. Personally, I have no moral objection to supporting the second form as a special case of the general COPY-from-select feature, but if it can't be done without uglifying the code then I'd agree with dropping it. I guess the question is whether the uglification is intrinsic or just a result of being descended from a poor original implementation. The feature-freeze argument seems not relevant, given that the code we had on the feature-freeze date did both things. Has this patch settled to the point where I can review it, or is it still in motion? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: