Hi, Psql based implementation needs new infrastructure (more than few lines)
Missing: * binary mode support * parametrized query support, I am not against, but both points I proposed, and both was rejected. So why dont use current infrastructure? Raw copy is trivial patch. Dne 6.8.2015 0:09 napsal uživatel "Andrew Dunstan" <and...@dunslane.net>: > > On 08/05/2015 04:59 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> On 07/27/2015 02:28 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> >>> 2015-07-27 10:41 GMT+02:00 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi>: >>> >>> What about input? This is a whole new feature, but it would be nice to be >>>> able to pass the file contents as a query parameter. Something like: >>>> >>>> \P /tmp/foo binary >>>> INSERT INTO foo VALUES (?); >>>> >>> >>> The example of input is strong reason, why don't do it via inserts. Only >>> parsing some special "?" symbol needs lot of new code. >>> >> >> Sorry, I meant $1 in place of the ?. No special parsing needed, psql can >> send the query to the server as is, with the parameters that are given by >> this new mechanism. >> >> In this case, I don't see any advantage of psql based solution. COPY is >>> standard interface for input/output from/to files, and it should be used >>> there. >>> >> >> I'm not too happy with the COPY approach, although I won't object is one >> of the other committers feel more comfortable with it. However, we don't >> seem to be making progress here, so I'm going to mark this as Returned with >> Feedback. I don't feel good about that either, because I don't actually >> have any great suggestions on how to move this forward. Which is a pity >> because this is a genuine problem for users. >> >> >> > This is really only a psql problem, IMNSHO. Inserting and extracting > binary data is pretty trivial for most users of client libraries (e.g. it's > a couple of lines of code in a DBD::Pg program), but it's hard in psql. > > I do agree that the COPY approach feels more than a little klunky. > > cheers > > andrew > > >
