|From:||Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>|
|Cc:||Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: pg_dump multi VALUES INSERT|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 2:47 PM Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
Thank you for looking into it
> Hello Surafel,
> > Thank you for informing, Here is an updated patch against current master
> Patch applies cleanly, compiles, "make check" is okay, but given that the
> feature is not tested...
> Feature should be tested somewhere.
> ISTM that command-line switches with optional arguments should be avoided:
> This feature is seldom used (hmmm... 2 existing instances), because it
> interferes with argument processing if such switches are used as the last
> one. It is only okay with commands which do not expect arguments. For
> backward compatibility, this suggests to add another switch, eg
> --insert-multi=100 or whatever, which would possibly default to 100. The
> alternative is to break compatibility with adding a mandatory argument,
> but I guess it would not be admissible to committers.
> Function "atoi" parses "1zzz" as 1, which is debatable, so I'd suggest to
> avoid it and use some stricter option and error out on malformed integers.
> The --help output does not document the --inserts argument, nor the
There is an indendation issue within the while loop.
> Given that the implementation is largely a copy-paste of the preceding
> function, I'd suggest to simply extend it so that it takes into account
> the "multi insert" setting and default to the previous behavior if not
At first i also try to do it like that but it seems the function will
became long and more complex to me
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2018-12-28 15:16:07||Re: Poor buildfarm coverage of strong-random alternatives|
|Previous Message||Fabien COELHO||2018-12-28 14:50:55||Re: Offline enabling/disabling of data checksums|