| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pavel Golub <pavel(at)gf(dot)microolap(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near "binary" |
| Date: | 2011-07-05 15:34:36 |
| Message-ID: | 4E132F0C.8090606@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 07/05/2011 11:23 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> Yeah. In particular, it conflicts with the ancient copy syntax which
> we still support for backwards compatibility with versions< 7.3. We
> can fix the immediate problem with something like the attached.
>
> (a) Should we do that?
yes.
> (b) Should we back-patch it to 9.1 and 9.0?
yes.
> (c) Should we consider removing compatibility with the ancient copy
> syntax in 9.2, and de-reserving that keyword? (Given that the
> workaround is this simple, I'm inclined to say "no", but could be
> persuaded otherwise.)
>
I'm inclined to say yes, but mainly because it's just old cruft. I don't
expect to be able,say, to load a pre-7.3 dump into a modern Postgres.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-05 15:34:47 | Re: [HACKERS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near "binary" |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-07-05 15:30:04 | Re: [HACKERS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near "binary" |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-05 15:34:47 | Re: [HACKERS] COPY .... WITH (FORMAT binary) causes syntax error at or near "binary" |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-05 15:31:38 | Re: Core Extensions relocation |