| From: | Sutou Kouhei <kou(at)clear-code(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Make COPY format extendable: Extract COPY TO format implementations |
| Date: | 2025-10-14 02:15:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20251014.111524.966856440891708928.kou@clear-code.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
In <CAD21AoBkA=g=PN17r_iieru+vLyLtGZ8WvohgANa2vzsMfMogQ(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
"Re: Make COPY format extendable: Extract COPY TO format implementations" on Mon, 13 Oct 2025 14:40:31 -0700,
Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The patch refactors the CopyToStateData so that we can both hide
> internal-use-only fields from extensions and extension can use its own
> state data, while not adding extra indirection layers. TBH I'm really
> not sure we must fully hide internal fields from extensions. Other
> extendable components seem not to strictly hide internal information
> from extensions. I'd suggest starting with only the latter point. That
> is, we merge fields in CopyToStateInternalData to CopyToStateData.
> What do you think?
OK. Let's follow the existing style. How about the attached
patch? It merges CopyToStateInternalData to CopyToStateData.
Thanks,
--
kou
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Split-CopyToStateData-to-CopyToState-Builtin-Data.patch | text/x-patch | 16.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2025-10-14 02:23:36 | Re: Clarification on Role Access Rights to Table Indexes |
| Previous Message | jian he | 2025-10-14 02:00:26 | Re: CAST(... ON DEFAULT) - WIP build on top of Error-Safe User Functions |