Re: BUG #1830: Non-super-user must be able to copy from a

Tom Lane wrote:

> What is the story on JDBC COPY support, anyway? I'm aware that there's
> an unofficial patch for that, but I'm not clear about why it's not made
> it into the accepted version.

I didn't like the whole "here is an undifferentiated stream of data"
approach -- there were some JDBC interfaces we could adapt to read/write
typed data. That never happened, though.

I suppose we could apply a patch similar to the original one, given that
there doesn't seem like much interest in a typed version, but it's
likely to need rework as there's been at least one overhaul of the
driver's protocol handling layer since then.

-O