Hi,
If there are no more comments for the current design, I'll
start implementing this feature with the following
approaches for "Discussing" items:
> 3.1 Should we use one function(internal) for COPY TO/FROM
> handlers or two function(internal)s (one is for COPY TO
> handler and another is for COPY FROM handler)?
> [4]
I'll choose "one function(internal) for COPY TO/FROM handlers".
> 3.4 Should we export Copy{To,From}State? Or should we just
> provide getters/setters to access Copy{To,From}State
> internal?
> [10]
I'll export Copy{To,From}State.
Thanks,
--
kou
In <20240112.144615.157925223373344229....@clear-code.com>
"Re: Make COPY format extendable: Extract COPY TO format implementations" on
Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:46:15 +0900 (JST),
Sutou Kouhei <k...@clear-code.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is the current summary for a this discussion to make
> COPY format extendable. It's for reaching consensus and
> starting implementing the feature. (I'll start implementing
> the feature once we reach consensus.) If you have any
> opinion, please share it.
>
> Confirmed:
>
> 1.1 Making COPY format extendable will not reduce performance.
> [1]
>
> Decisions:
>
> 2.1 Use separated handler for COPY TO and COPY FROM because
> our COPY TO implementation (copyto.c) and COPY FROM
> implementation (coypfrom.c) are separated.
> [2]
>
> 2.2 Don't use system catalog for COPY TO/FROM handlers. We can
> just use a function(internal) that returns a handler instead.
> [3]
>
> 2.3 The implementation must include documentation.
> [5]
>
> 2.4 The implementation must include test.
> [6]
>
> 2.5 The implementation should be consist of small patches
> for easy to review.
> [6]
>
> 2.7 Copy{To,From}State must have a opaque space for
> handlers.
> [8]
>
> 2.8 Export CopySendData() and CopySendEndOfRow() for COPY TO
> handlers.
> [8]
>
> 2.9 Make "format" in PgMsg_CopyOutResponse message
> extendable.
> [9]
>
> 2.10 Make makeNode() call avoidable in function(internal)
> that returns COPY TO/FROM handler.
> [9]
>
> 2.11 Custom COPY TO/FROM handlers must be able to parse
> their options.
> [11]
>
> Discussing:
>
> 3.1 Should we use one function(internal) for COPY TO/FROM
> handlers or two function(internal)s (one is for COPY TO
> handler and another is for COPY FROM handler)?
> [4]
>
> 3.2 If we use separated function(internal) for COPY TO/FROM
> handlers, we need to define naming rule. For example,
> <method_name>_to(internal) for COPY TO handler and
> <method_name>_from(internal) for COPY FROM handler.
> [4]
>
> 3.3 Should we use prefix or suffix for function(internal)
> name to avoid name conflict with other handlers such as
> tablesample handlers?
> [7]
>
> 3.4 Should we export Copy{To,From}State? Or should we just
> provide getters/setters to access Copy{To,From}State
> internal?
> [10]
>
>
> [1]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20231204.153548.2126325458835528809.kou%40clear-code.com
> [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ZXEUIy6wl4jHy6Nm%40paquier.xyz
> [3]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAD21AoAhcZkAp_WDJ4sSv_%2Bg2iCGjfyMFgeu7MxjnjX_FutZAg%40mail.gmail.com
> [4]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAD21AoDkoGL6yJ_HjNOg9cU%3DaAdW8uQ3rSQOeRS0SX85LPPNwQ%40mail.gmail.com
> [5]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/TY3PR01MB9889C9234CD220A3A7075F0DF589A%40TY3PR01MB9889.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
> [6] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ZXbiPNriHHyUrcTF%40paquier.xyz
> [7]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20231214.184414.2179134502876898942.kou%40clear-code.com
> [8]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20231221.183504.1240642084042888377.kou%40clear-code.com
> [9] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/ZYTfqGppMc9e_w2k%40paquier.xyz
> [10]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAD21AoD%3DUapH4Wh06G6H5XAzPJ0iJg9YcW8r7E2UEJkZ8QsosA%40mail.gmail.com
> [11]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20240110.152023.1920937326588672387.kou%40clear-code.com
>
>
> Thanks,
> --
> kou
>
>
