From: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Possible TODO item: copy to/from pipe |
Date: | 2006-05-31 17:26:47 |
Message-ID: | 447DD1D7.20001@pse-consulting.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>> I dislike putting this into the backend precisely because it's trying to
>> impose a one-size-fits-all compression solution. Someone might wish to
>> use bzip2 instead of gzip, for instance, or tweak the compression level
>> options of gzip. It's trivial for the user to do that if the
>> compression program is separate, not trivial at all if it's wired into
>> COPY. Also, a pipe feature would have uses unrelated to compression,
>> such as on-the-fly analysis or generation of data.
>
>
> It seems that it would be better to have the options within pg_dump
> which would give the most flexibility.
What about all other client tools?
My COPY WITH COMPRESSION is not the same as taking a copy file and
zipping it; it creates a copy file with BinarySignature that has
compressed bytes in the data part, thus it can be handled by any client
app that can stream binary copy files from/to the server.
Regards,
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-05-31 17:28:20 | Re: Possible TODO item: copy to/from pipe |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-31 17:24:59 | Re: [PATCH] Magic block for modules |