Re: Binary COPY IN size reduction

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Lőrinc Pap <lorinc(at)gradle(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Binary COPY IN size reduction
Date: 2020-04-28 14:41:15
Message-ID: 20200428144115.GY13712@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greetings,

* Lőrinc Pap (lorinc(at)gradle(dot)com) wrote:
> Thanks for the quick response, Tom!

We prefer to not top-post on these lists, just fyi.

> What about implementing only the first part of my proposal, i.e. BINARY
> COPY without the redundant column count & size info?

For my part, at least, I like the idea- but I'd encourage thinking about
what we might do in a mixed-response situation too, as that's something
that's been discussed as at least desirable. As long as we aren't
ending up painting ourselves into a corner somehow (which it doesn't
seem like we are, but I've not looked deeply at it) and we don't break
any existing clients, I'd generally be supportive of such an
improvement. Constantly sending "this 4-byte int is 4 bytes long"
certainly does seem like a waste of bandwidth.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-04-28 14:44:58 Re: More efficient RI checks - take 2
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2020-04-28 14:31:54 Re: More efficient RI checks - take 2