| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: FORCE_NULL option for copy COPY in CSV mode |
| Date: | 2013-10-09 17:59:36 |
| Message-ID: | 52559988.5000606@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/09/2013 01:25 PM, David Fetter wrote:
>
> Idea:
>
> NULL FOR (foo,bar,baz,blurf) AS '""', NULL FOR (quux,fleeg) AS ...,
>
>
What's the point of this? How is this superior to what is currently
proposed? Having arbitrary NULL markers for different fields will
significantly increase code complexity for a case I have a hard time
believing exists to any significant degree in the real world. The ONLY
case I know of outside some fervid imaginations where we need to
distinguish between different NULL treatment is quoted vs unquoted,
which this patch rounds out. Catering for anything else seems quite
unnecessary.
What is more, I think it's actually far more obscure than what is
proposed, which fits in nicely with our existing pattern of options.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2013-10-09 18:00:46 | Re: Triggers on foreign tables |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-09 17:49:23 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |