2016-12-10 7:11 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> 2016-12-10 2:27 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com>:
>
>> On 12/9/16 9:39 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> SELECT image FROM accounts WHERE id = xxx
>>> \gstore_binary ~/image.png
>>>
>>> What do you think about this proposal?
>>>
>>
>> Seems reasonable.
>>
>> I've lost track at this point... is there a way to go the other direction
>> with that as well? Namely, stick the contents of a file into a field via an
>> INSERT or UPDATE?
>>
>
> a target of this feature is storing only. For import there should be
> another statements.
>
> I am think so there is a consensus (with Tom) on binary passing mode. Some
> like
>
> \set USE_BINARY on
>
I was wrong - the agreement is on passing psql parameters as query
parameters - not on binary mode. Binary mode can be interesting for
importing xml, but it is really corner case.
>
> What is not clean (where is not a agreement is a way how to get a some
> content) - if we use a variables with content (not references), then we can
> or cannot to have special statement
>
> so some ways how to push some binary content to server
>
> A)
> \set xxxx `cat file`
> \set USE_BINARY on
> INSERT INTO tab(id, data) VALUES(1, :xxxx::bytea);
>
> B)
> \set xxxx `cat file`
> INSERT INTO tab(id, data) VALUES (1, :x'xxxx'); -- use bytea escape
>
> C)
> \load_binary xxxx file
> INSERT INTO tab(id, data) VALUES(1, :'xxxx');
>
> D)
> \load xxxx file
> \set USE_BINARY on
> INSERT INTO tab(id, data) VALUES(1, :xxxx::bytea);
>
> E)
> \set xxxx ``cat file``
> INSERT INTO tab(id, data) VALUES (1, :'xxxx');
>
> any from mentioned variants has some advantages - and I don't see a clean
> winner. I like a binary mode for passing - the patch is small and clean and
> possible errors are well readable (not a MBytes of hexa numbers). Passing
> in text mode is safe - although the some errors, logs can be crazy. I would
> to use some form of "load" backslash command ("load", "load_binary"): a) we
> can implement a file tab complete, b) we can hide some platform specific
> ("cat" linux, "type" windows).
>
> Now, only text variables are supported - it is enough for passing XML,
> JSON - but not for binary data (one important variant is passing XML binary
> for automatic XML internal encoding transformation). So we should to encode
> content before storing to variable, or we should to introduce binary
> variables. It is not hard - introduce new functions, current API will
> supports text variables.
>
> The implementation of these variants is short, simple - we can implement
> more than exactly one way - @E is general, but little bit magic, and
> without a autocomplete possibility, @C is very clear
>
> The discussion can be about importance following features:
>
> 1. binary passing (important for XML, doesn't fill a logs, a speed is not
> important in this context)
> 2. tab complete support
> 3. verbosity, readability
>
> I would to know how these points are important, interesting for other
> people? It can helps with choosing variant or variants that we can
> implement. I don't expect some significant differences in implementation
> complexity of mentioned variants - the code changes will be +/- same.
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
>
>
>>
>> I've done that in the past via psql -v var=`cat file`, but there's
>> obviously some significant drawbacks to that...
>> --
>> Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
>> Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
>> Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
>> 855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)
>>
>
>
