Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

Simon Riggs wrote:
> I'm not clear from all of those options whether we still need a LOAD
> command, based upon other issues/comments raised on this thread.
>
> However, there are some other arguments for why it might be a good idea
> to have a LOAD DATA command separate from COPY. Certainly long term
> features would be easier to add with two commands. Trying to maintain
> backwards compatibility just because we use COPY seems like an uphill
> struggle and is going to mean we have to handle sensible new additions
> as options so we don't break existing applications. The most important
> one is the lock type held.

Well, we have had a pretty much unmodified COPY format since like the
Berkeley days (I added \N and \.). Please tell us exactly what you want
do to that requires a format change, and we can talk about it, but
showing up with no proof and expecting a new command is the _wrong_
approach. It actually reminds me of the "our company developed it so it
must be great" approach, which doesn't work well in the community.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073