On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> On Wed, November 25, 2009 3:56 pm, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> I worry that we're getting further away from the original problem. Let's
>> allow functions to get the bytes of data from a COPY, like the original
>> proposal. I am not sure COPY is the best mechanism to move records
>> around when INSERT ... SELECT already does that.
> I am not at all sure I think that's a good idea, though. We have
> pg_read_file() for getting raw bytes from files. Building that into COPY
> does not strike me as a good fit.
I think we speak of the opposite direction...
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2009-11-26 06:30:14|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby and cancelling idle queries|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2009-11-26 05:35:42|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY