Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Trouble with COPY IN

From: Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>
To: James William Pye <lists(at)jwp(dot)name>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Maciek Sakrejda <msakrejda(at)truviso(dot)com>, Samuel Gendler <sgendler(at)ideasculptor(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Trouble with COPY IN
Date: 2010-08-07 07:09:59
Message-ID: alpine.BSO.2.00.1008070305470.12532@leary.csoft.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-jdbc

On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, James William Pye wrote:

> On Aug 6, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Kris Jurka wrote:
>> <binary-copy-end-v2.patch>
>
> I think there's a snag in the patch:
>
> postgres=# COPY data FROM '/Users/jwp/DATA.bcopy' WITH BINARY;
> ERROR:  row field count is -1, expected 1
> CONTEXT:  COPY data, line 4
>
> Probably a quick/small fix away, I imagine.

Hmm, not quite sure why that is.  That seems to imply that it's not using 
V3 protocol, but I thought binary copy could only be used with the V3 
protocol.  In any case, I think this new patch is more bulletproof.

Kris Jurka

Attachment: binary-copy-end-v3.patch
Description: text/plain (1.2 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2010-08-07 07:24:11
Subject: Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch
Previous:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2010-08-07 06:04:25
Subject: Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: maxDate: 2010-08-08 02:40:25
Subject: one more question about LISTEN / NOTIFY
Previous:From: James William PyeDate: 2010-08-07 00:45:15
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Trouble with COPY IN

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group