Simon Riggs wrote:
> I'm not clear from all of those options whether we still need a LOAD
> command, based upon other issues/comments raised on this thread.
> 
> However, there are some other arguments for why it might be a good idea
> to have a LOAD DATA command separate from COPY. Certainly long term
> features would be easier to add with two commands. Trying to maintain
> backwards compatibility just because we use COPY seems like an uphill
> struggle and is going to mean we have to handle sensible new additions
> as options so we don't break existing applications. The most important
> one is the lock type held. 

Well, we have had a pretty much unmodified COPY format since like the
Berkeley days (I added \N and \.).  Please tell us exactly what you want
do to that requires a format change, and we can talk about it, but
showing up with no proof and expecting a new command is the _wrong_
approach.  It actually reminds me of the "our company developed it so it
must be great" approach, which doesn't work well in the community.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

• Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? at 2005-06-01 22:39:59 from Simon Riggs

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Joe Conway	Date: 2005-06-01 23:06:09
	Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2005-06-01 23:02:17
	Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?