| From: | Nikolay Samokhvalov <nik(at)postgres(dot)ai> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: IO wait events for COPY FROM/TO PROGRAM or file |
| Date: | 2026-01-31 19:51:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAM527d8uWd3dowhF5yEfpzqGw4zFM5nT7wxR2ptnJkEUVB3=iA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 02:22 Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 09:22:26PM -0600, Sami Imseih wrote:
> > I don't see any issue with this approach for fwrite().
>
> Please feel free to discard my comment, then :)
>
> > Another comment. Wouldn't be better to use "COPY FROM" and "COPY TO" in
> the
> > names to make it more obvious they are related to the COPY command?
>
> Yeah, we had better do that. That's slightly cleaner for the user if
> they mix both COPY types at the same time, not requiring a mental
> mapping that FROM is a read and TO is a write.
v2 attached with the rename per feedback: COPY_DATA_READ/WRITE →
COPY_FROM_READ/COPY_TO_WRITE.
Given how small this patch is, any chance it could still make PG19?
>
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Add-IO-wait-events-for-COPY-file-program-operations.patch | application/x-patch | 3.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lukas Fittl | 2026-01-31 20:11:33 | Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc? |
| Previous Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2026-01-31 18:00:00 | Re: Allow GUC settings in CREATE SUBSCRIPTION CONNECTION to take effect |