Re: COPY BINARY is broken...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: COPY BINARY is broken...
Date: 2000-12-10 22:34:27
Message-ID: 17592.976487667@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>>> Its handling of nulls is bizarre, too. I'm thinking this might be a
>>>> good time to abandon backwards compatibility and switch to a format
>>>> that's a little easier to read and write. Does anyone have an opinion
>>>> pro or con about that?
>>
>> BINARY COPY scared the bejeezus out of me, anyone using the interface
>> is asking for trouble and supporting it seems like a nightmare, I
>> would rip it out.

> Tom, just keep in mind that the format is documented in copy.sgml.

Not documented *correctly*, I notice. There are at least two errors,
plus the rather major omission that <tuple data> is not explained.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-12-10 23:48:22 Re: Re: COPY BINARY file format proposal
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-12-10 22:26:55 Re: memory management suggestion