| 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 |
| Date: | 2018-12-31 05:57:59 |
| Message-ID: | CALAY4q-BUdc9cBLAwL9UeqgOGZJmcH9ERm+OekpvkQBng1=1ew@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:46 PM Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>
> > At first i also try to do it like that but it seems the function will
> > became long and more complex to me
>
> Probably. But calling it with size 100 should result in the same behavior,
> so it is really just an extension of the preceeding one? Or am I missing
> something?
>
>
Specifying table data using single value insert statement and user
specified values insert statement
have enough deference that demand to be separate function and they are not
the same thing that should implement
with the same function. Regarding code duplication i think the solution is
making those code separate function
and call at appropriate place.
Regards
Surafel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-12-31 06:03:05 | Re: PostgreSQL vs SQL/XML Standards |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-31 05:37:35 | Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables) |