Horton

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

Daniel Farina <drfarina@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Daniel Farina <drfarina@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@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: 2009-11-25T05:31:57Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:

>
> I still don't see any reason to force it to be record by record though.
> If the point is to push data from a table into a remote table, why
> should the copied data be translated out of binary format into a record,
> and then back into binary form to send to the remote system?
>
> Currently, the second argument to copy is a source or destination of
> bytes, not records. So forcing it to deal with records is inconsistent.

You are correct.  It so happens as an artifact of how COPY is written
that things are delivered row-by-row, but at some fundamental level it
does not matter were that not the case...

fdr