| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, List pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY view |
| Date: | 2006-06-14 21:27:30 |
| Message-ID: | 44907F42.8060608@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
>
> why do we agree on a patch, implement it and reject it then?
> would be easier to reject it before actually implementing it ...
> it is quite hard to explain to a customer that something is rejected
> after approval - even if things are written properly ...
>
>
That's a good point and I understand the pain.
Could we maybe do this?: Take the patch as it is now, and if/when we
get the more general syntax we do a little magic under the hood to turn
COPY viewname TO
into
COPY (select * from viewname) TO
just a thought
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-06-14 21:27:43 | Re: SQL/XML publishing function experimental patch II |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-06-14 21:23:11 | Re: [PATCHES] PL/pgSQL: SELECT INTO EXACT |