| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Hans-J?rgen Sch?nig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Paolo Magnoli <pmagnoli(at)systemevolution(dot)it>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, eg(at)cybertec(dot)at |
| Subject: | Re: R: feature proposal ... |
| Date: | 2005-09-22 20:25:53 |
| Message-ID: | 15146.1127420753@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> So why not do what everyone is agreed on now?
I wasn't agreed on it ;-)
The primary objection I've got is that I think this will be a very
considerable increment of work for exactly zero increment in
functionality, compared to being able to copy from a view. (If you're
not seeing why, consider that COPY is a utility statement not an
optimizable statement; you'd have to change that classification, with
resultant impacts all across the system.) There are other places
where the effort could be more usefully spent.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2005-09-22 20:36:46 | Re: R: feature proposal ... |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-09-22 20:16:57 | Re: R: feature proposal ... |