Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)


From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, 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: [HACKERS] COPY view
Date: 2006-08-22 17:11:22
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>> Well, the patch was submitted in time, and it is a desired 
>>>> feature.  If
>>>> we want to hold it for 8.3 due to lack of time, we can, but I don't
>>>> think we can decide now that it must wait.
>>> well I thought the agreed approach to that was allowing COPY from
>>> arbitrary expressions without the need to go through the extra CREATE
>>> VIEW step?
>> Exactly.  This is not the feature that was agreed to.  Just because we
>> have a patch for it doesn't mean that we have to put it in.  If we do
>> put it in, we'll be stuck carrying that feature forever, even after
>> someone gets around to doing it right.
>>             regards, tom lane
> It has been made as "COPY FROM / TO view" because people wanted it to 
> be done that way.
> My original proposal was in favour of arbitrary SELECTs (just like 
> proposed by the TODO list) but this was rejected. So, we did it that 
> way (had to explain to customer why views are better). Now everybody 
> wants the original select which was proposed.
> I can understand if things are not committed because of bad code 
> quality or whatever but to be honest: It is more of less frustrating 
> if things are done differently because of community wish and then 
> rejected because things are not done the original way ...
> Things have been submitted months ago and now we are short of time. I 
> think everybody on the list is going a superior job but after 6 years 
> I still have no idea how patches are treated ;).

There's nothing hidden (unless it's also hidden from me ;-) )

I take it that when you talk about "we did this" you are referring to 
the patch from Karel Zak.

I have had a quick look at that patch, and apart from not applying 
cleanly to the current CVS tree (which isn't your fault as the patch has 
been sitting around for so long) it is also missing regression tests and 
docs. That's without even looking at code quality. So, how quickly can 
you fix those 3 things?



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-08-22 17:26:12
Subject: Tricky bugs in concurrent index build
Previous:From: Hans-Juergen SchoenigDate: 2006-08-22 16:46:05
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] COPY view

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-08-22 19:36:30
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] COPY view
Previous:From: Hans-Juergen SchoenigDate: 2006-08-22 16:46:05
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] COPY view

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group