On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 06:34:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: > > Yes, and GUCs allow users to retrofit this approach onto existing > > infrastructure without changing their COPY commands. So there's > > advantages and disadvantages. My question was really for the -hackers > > at large: is this the design we want? Or, more directly, is the GUC > > approach anathema to anyone? > > Half a dozen interrelated GUCs to control a single command fairly > screams "bad design" to me; especially the ones that specifically bear > on the command semantics, rather than being performance settings that > you could reasonably have system-wide defaults for. Could we please > look at doing it via COPY options instead? > > It might be time to switch COPY over to a more easily extensible > option syntax, such as we just adopted for EXPLAIN.
+1 :) Cheers, David (still working on that windowing bug) -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
