| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Farina <drfarina(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <dfarina(at)truviso(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION |
| Date: | 2009-11-25 06:31:01 |
| Message-ID: | 162867790911242231p2141f4acoe0350b9d1ded1b00@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2009/11/25 Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 21:42 -0800, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> You are probably right. We could try coercing to bytea and back out
>> to bytes, although it seems like a superfluous cost to force
>> *everyone* to pay just to get the same bytes to a network buffer.
>
> Well, I suppose only performance will tell. Copying a buffer is sure to
> be faster than invoking all of the type input/output functions, or even
> send/recv, so perhaps it's not a huge penalty.
>
> My disagreement with the row-by-row approach is more semantics than
> performance. COPY translates records to bytes and vice-versa, and your
> original patch maintains those semantics.
uff, really
COPY CSV ?
Pavel
>
> Regards,
> Jeff Davis
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Farina | 2009-11-25 06:35:11 | Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-11-25 06:23:41 | Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION |