| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: COPY for CSV documentation |
| Date: | 2004-04-12 03:40:25 |
| Message-ID: | 28915.1081741225@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> In other words, the string after CSV is optional. However, looking at
> the COPY syntax, there isn't any case where we have an optional string
> after a keyword. Is that OK?
Seems better to avoid it.
> However, this still has CSV using a two-character string with special
> meaning for the first and second characters.
One point that I don't think was made before is that if we do any such
thing, we'll be forever foreclosing any chance of allowing
multi-character delimiters. ISTM that would not be forward-looking.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-04-12 06:05:01 | Re: COPY for CSV documentation |
| Previous Message | Serguei Mokhov | 2004-04-12 03:30:17 | Re: Russian FAQ update |