Horton

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add tests to dblink covering use of COPY TO FUNCTION

Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Daniel Farina <drfarina@gmail.com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu@krosing.net>, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Daniel Farina <dfarina@truviso.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2009-11-26T07:22:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 00:35 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On Wed, November 25, 2009 3:56 pm, Jeff Davis wrote:
> >
> > I worry that we're getting further away from the original problem. Let's
> > allow functions to get the bytes of data from a COPY, like the original
> > proposal. I am not sure COPY is the best mechanism to move records
> > around when INSERT ... SELECT already does that.
> >
> 
> 
> I am not at all sure I think that's a good idea, though. We have
> pg_read_file() for getting raw bytes from files. Building that into COPY
> does not strike me as a good fit.

I think we're in agreement. All I mean is that the second argument to
COPY should produce/consume bytes and not records. I'm not discussing
the internal implementation at all, only semantics.

In other words, STDIN is not a source of records, it's a source of
bytes; and likewise for STDOUT.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis