| From: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: COPY support survey |
| Date: | 2005-08-19 14:59:32 |
| Message-ID: | 4305F3D4.1000306@hogranch.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
> Would it not be possible to do (1) now and leave the door open to add
> (2) later without breaking existing uses of (1)? That is, I don't see
> why (3) has to carry a risk of non-backwards-compatibility. Surely you
> can design non-overlapping APIs for (1) and (2).
>
> (Obviously, my vote is for (3).)
indeed, from a systems engineering viewpoint, thats the correct solution. (1)
is a sort of COPY RAW function, while (2) is more java-like. OTOH, if
there's no Java standard for a JDBC mechanism like (2), it becomes tougher to
justify.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-08-19 16:05:43 | Re: COPY support survey |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2005-08-19 14:54:44 | Re: java.sql.SQLException: ERROR: canceling query due |