Horton

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

Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: 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: 2009-11-25T08:23:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
2009/11/25 Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>:
> On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 07:36 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> > Moving records from a function to a table can be done with:
>> >  INSERT INTO mytable SELECT * FROM myfunc();
>> > And that already works fine.
>>
>> It works, but COPY FROM myfunc() should be significantly faster. You
>> can skip tuple store.
>
> If SRFs use a tuplestore in that situation, it sounds like that should
> be fixed. Why do we need to provide alternate syntax involving COPY?

It isn't problem of SRF function design. It allow both mode - row and
tuplestor. This is problem of INSERT statement, resp. INSERT INTO
SELECT implementation.

Regards
Pavel

>
> Regards,
>        Jeff Davis
>
>