Horton

Re: exposing COPY API

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>

View thread
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Shigeru HANADA <hanada@metrosystems.co.jp>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-02-09T17:45:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Allow the low level COPY routines to read arbitrary numbers of fields.


On 02/09/2011 12:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Shigeru HANADA
> <hanada@metrosystems.co.jp>  wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:49:36 -0500
>> Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Shigeru HANADA
>>> <hanada@metrosystems.co.jp>  wrote:
>>>> I'll submit revised file_fdw patch after removing IsForeignTable()
>>>> catalog lookup along Heikki's proposal.
>>> So I'm a bit confused.  I don't see the actual copy API change patch
>>> anywhere here.  Are we close to getting something committed there?
>> I'm sorry but I might have missed your point...
>>
>> I replied here to answer to Itagaki-san's mention about typos in
>> file_fdw patch.
>>
>> Or, would you mean that file_fdw should not depend on "copy API change"
>> patch?
> I mean that this thread is entitled "exposing copy API", and I'm
> wondering when and if the patch to expose the COPY API is going to be
> committed.


Itagaki-san published a patch for this about about 12 hours ago in the 
file_fdw thread that looks pretty committable to me.

This whole API thing is a breakout from file_fdw, because the original 
file_fdw submission copied huge chunks of copy.c instead of trying to 
leverage it.

cheers

andrew