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

Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Alon Goldshuv <agoldshuv(at)greenplum(dot)com>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Date: 2005-06-01 23:06:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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                        |
  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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2005-06-01 23:06:09
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-06-01 23:02:17
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group