Re: raw output from copy

Hi

previous patch was broken, and buggy

Here is new version with fixed upload and more tests

The interesting is so I should not to modify interface or client - so it
should to work with any current driver with protocol support >= 3.

Regards

Pavel

2015-07-06 23:34 GMT+02:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:

> Hi
>
> here is a version with both direction support.
>
> postgres=# copy foo from '/tmp/1.jpg' (format raw);
> COPY 1
> Time: 93.021 ms
> postgres=# \dt+ foo
> List of relations
> ┌────────┬──────┬───────┬───────┬────────┬─────────────┐
> │ Schema │ Name │ Type │ Owner │ Size │ Description │
> ╞════════╪══════╪═══════╪═══════╪════════╪═════════════╡
> │ public │ foo │ table │ pavel │ 256 kB │ │
> └────────┴──────┴───────┴───────┴────────┴─────────────┘
> (1 row)
>
> postgres=# \copy foo to '~/3.jpg' (format raw)
> COPY 1
> Time: 2.401 ms
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
> 2015-07-02 17:02 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> > Does the COPY line protocol even support binary data?
>>
>> The protocol, per se, just transmits a byte stream. There is a field
>> in the CopyInResponse/CopyOutResponse messages that indicates whether
>> a text or binary copy is being done. One thing we'd have to consider
>> is whether "raw" mode is sufficiently different from binary to justify
>> an additional value for this field, and if so whether that constitutes
>> a protocol break.
>>
>> IIRC, psql wouldn't really care; it just transfers the byte stream to or
>> from the target file, regardless of text or binary mode. But there might
>> be other client libraries that are smarter and expect "binary" mode to
>> mean the binary file format specified in the COPY reference page. So
>> there may be value in being explicit about "raw" mode in these messages.
>>
>> A key point in all this is that people who need "raw" transfer probably
>> need it in both directions, a point that your SELECT proposal cannot
>> satisfy, but hacking COPY could. So I lean towards the latter really.
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>>
>
>