| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shigeru HANADA <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: exposing COPY API |
| Date: | 2011-02-09 17:26:47 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=Xu_oj_ogut_XwgFYA+DZZevvfGyawsNdp0Uvj@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Shigeru HANADA
<hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:49:36 -0500
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Shigeru HANADA
>> <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> > I'll submit revised file_fdw patch after removing IsForeignTable()
>> > catalog lookup along Heikki's proposal.
>>
>> So I'm a bit confused. I don't see the actual copy API change patch
>> anywhere here. Are we close to getting something committed there?
>
> I'm sorry but I might have missed your point...
>
> I replied here to answer to Itagaki-san's mention about typos in
> file_fdw patch.
>
> Or, would you mean that file_fdw should not depend on "copy API change"
> patch?
I mean that this thread is entitled "exposing copy API", and I'm
wondering when and if the patch to expose the COPY API is going to be
committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-09 17:28:45 | Re: Transaction-scope advisory locks |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-09 17:25:02 | Re: SSI patch version 14 |