RE: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
> Please pardon me for barging in late in this discussion, but if we're
> going to be using a bulk API here, wouldn't it make more sense to use
> COPY, except where RETURNING is specified, in place of INSERT?

Please do not hesitate. I mentioned earlier in this thread that I think INSERT is better because:

--------------------------------------------------
* When the user executed INSERT statements, it would look strange to the user if the remote SQL is displayed as COPY.

* COPY doesn't invoke rules unlike INSERT. (I don't think the rule is a feature what users care about, though.) Also, I'm a bit concerned that there might be, or will be, other differences between INSERT and COPY.
--------------------------------------------------

Also, COPY to foreign tables currently uses INSERTs, the improvement of using COPY instead of INSERT is in progress [1]. Keeping "COPY uses COPY, INSERT uses INSERT" correspondence seems natural, and it makes COPY's high-speed advantage stand out.

[1]
Fast COPY FROM command for the table with foreign partitions
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/3d0909dc-3691-a576-208a-90986e55489f%40postgrespro.ru

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa