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

Re: SQL COPY syntax extension (was: Performance on inserts)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Oliver Teuber <teuber(at)abyss(dot)devicen(dot)de>, Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SQL COPY syntax extension (was: Performance on inserts)
Date: 2000-08-28 21:14:30
Message-ID: 18772.967497270@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> What I actually had in mind was a more SQL-like syntax for copy,
> i.e. no default arguments, all fields required etc. that would we easy
> to bolt on current copy machinery but still use 'SQL' syntax (no . or
> \. or \\. for EOD, NULL for NULL values, quotes around strings ...)

Seems like a reasonable idea, although I'd recommend sticking to the
convention that \. on a line means EOD, to avoid having to hack the
client-side libraries.  As long as you leave that alone, libpq,
libpgtcl, etc etc should be transparent to the copy data format.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: ChrisDate: 2000-08-29 00:07:39
Subject: Re: Re: UNION JOIN vs UNION SELECT
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-08-28 21:05:10
Subject: Re: SQL COPY syntax extension (was: Performance on inserts)

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