Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

From: "Alon Goldshuv" <agoldshuv(at)greenplum(dot)com>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Date: 2005-06-01 23:29:30
Message-ID: BEC392EA.5140%agoldshuv@greenplum.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce,

The patch is not there to show that something is "broken" is it there to
show how things could be done in another way, which may or may not be more
desireable.

> COPY works as designed. The idea that some guy we have never heard of
> is going to appear and rewrite COPY's processing and tell us that the
> existing code is actually broken seems pretty arrogant to me. If it is
> broken (meaning doesn't work as designed), please show us facts rather
> than conjecture.

I am sure that the code works as designed. In my previous email I was
referring to the fact that using COPY with a data field that happens to have
backslashes in it, and then querying this data field you will get different
results. For example do COPY of a field "c:\\one\ten\nine" and query for it.
The result will be much different. This is a problem with clickstream data
for example. That's all. It's very possible that there are reasons that I
missed for why things are the way they are.

> (Please explain how you handle literal delimiters and nulls with no
> escape processing.)
Escape processing is done only for these 2 cases.

Thx,
Alon.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Luke Lonergan 2005-06-02 00:05:29 Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Previous Message Joe Conway 2005-06-01 23:06:09 Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?