Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 16:34 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> There are some other arguments in favour of a LOAD command.... Alon?
>> We already have LOAD, so you'll have to choose something else :)
> Its annoying, I grant you. :-)
> LOAD 'library' would still need to be the default.
> LOAD LIBRARY 'library' would be the new recommended usage.
> LOAD DATA... would be the new command... with most other options hanging
> off of that. There's no problem with that, since that is then the same
> as Oracle syntax for the load utility.
Uh, what's wrong with adding an option to COPY? Not like it hasn't got
a ton of 'em already. The Oracle-compatibility angle doesn't interest
me at all, mainly because I find it highly improbable that we'd be exactly
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-06-01 14:05:13|
|Subject: Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-06-01 13:58:53|
|Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |