| From: | Daniel Farina <drfarina(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <dfarina(at)truviso(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION |
| Date: | 2009-11-25 05:31:57 |
| Message-ID: | 7b97c5a40911242131j25a1d376r19c04301da8354c3@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I still don't see any reason to force it to be record by record though.
> If the point is to push data from a table into a remote table, why
> should the copied data be translated out of binary format into a record,
> and then back into binary form to send to the remote system?
>
> Currently, the second argument to copy is a source or destination of
> bytes, not records. So forcing it to deal with records is inconsistent.
You are correct. It so happens as an artifact of how COPY is written
that things are delivered row-by-row, but at some fundamental level it
does not matter were that not the case...
fdr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-11-25 05:35:59 | Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION |
| Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-11-25 05:25:40 | Re: SE-PgSQL patch review |