Re: SQL COPY syntax extension (was: Performance on inserts)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Oliver Teuber <teuber(at)abyss(dot)devicen(dot)de>, Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SQL COPY syntax extension (was: Performance on inserts)
Date: 2000-08-28 21:14:30
Message-ID: 18772.967497270@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> What I actually had in mind was a more SQL-like syntax for copy,
> i.e. no default arguments, all fields required etc. that would we easy
> to bolt on current copy machinery but still use 'SQL' syntax (no . or
> \. or \\. for EOD, NULL for NULL values, quotes around strings ...)

Seems like a reasonable idea, although I'd recommend sticking to the
convention that \. on a line means EOD, to avoid having to hack the
client-side libraries. As long as you leave that alone, libpq,
libpgtcl, etc etc should be transparent to the copy data format.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris 2000-08-29 00:07:39 Re: Re: UNION JOIN vs UNION SELECT
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-08-28 21:05:10 Re: SQL COPY syntax extension (was: Performance on inserts)