Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: surppressing column names in COPY format

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: surppressing column names in COPY format
Date: 2003-07-31 21:13:34
Message-ID: 1059686014.22273.1623.camel@camel (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 16:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> > On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 15:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I don't really agree that we've "lost functionality" here, though ---
> >> you might as well claim that it's a bug that the COPY command forces
> >> you to restore the data into a particular table.
> 
> > By that logic then what is the point of allowing data dumped as INSERTS
> > both with and without column names?
> 
> None; we just haven't gotten around to removing code that no longer
> pulls its weight.  The no-column-name variant is just as dangerous as
> it was in the COPY case, IMHO.
> 

by dangerous you mean functional right? (I'm not changing the data, just
the column name) 

would a patch to remove this dead code (the insert without column case)
be accepted for 7.4?

Robert Treat
-- 
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL


In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Ron JohnsonDate: 2003-07-31 21:17:05
Subject: Re: Transactions across multiples databases
Previous:From: Peter NixonDate: 2003-07-31 20:53:16
Subject: CAST INTERVAL to INT??

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group