Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom, this is fixed, right?
Yes.
regards, tom lane
Tom, this is fixed, right?
> I've just noticed that COPY BINARY is pretty thoroughly broken by TOAST,
> because what it does is to dump out verbatim the bytes making up each
> tuple of the relation. In the case of a moved-off value, you'll get
> the toast reference, which is not going to be too
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Its handling of nulls is bizarre, too. I'm thinking this might be a
good time to abandon backwards compatibility and switch to a format
that's a little easier to read and write. Does anyone have an opinion
pro or con about that?
>>
>
> > Its handling of nulls is bizarre, too. I'm thinking this might be a
> > good time to abandon backwards compatibility and switch to a format
> > that's a little easier to read and write. Does anyone have an opinion
> > pro or con about that?
>
> BINARY COPY scared the bejeezus out of me, any
Adriaan Joubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Copy binary recently broke on me after upgrading to 7.0.
I think you're talking about binary copy via the frontend, which has a
different set of problems. To fix that, we need to make some protocol
changes, which would (preferably) also apply to non-
Hi,
I would very much like some way of writing binary data to a database.
Copy binary recently broke on me after upgrading to 7.0. I have large
simulation codes and writing lots of floats to the database by
converting them to text first is 1) a real pain, 2) slow and 3) can lead
to unexpe
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 05:56:57PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I would rip it out.
>
> I thought about that too, but was afraid to suggest it ;-)
>
> How many people are actually using COPY BINARY?
>
I have used it, I don't think I'm actually using
At 03:05 PM 12/1/00 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>How about adding COPY XML?
>(kidding of course about the XML, but it would make postgresql more
>buzzword compliant :) )
Hey, we could add a parser and call the module MyXML ...
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nature photos,
* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001201 14:57] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I would rip it out.
>
> I thought about that too, but was afraid to suggest it ;-)
I think you'd agree that you have more fun and important things to
do than to deal with this yucky interface.
> The existing COPY BINARY file format is entirely brain-dead
> anyway; for example, it wants the number of tuples to be stored
> at the front, which means we have to scan the whole relation an
> extra time to get that info. Its handling of nulls is bizarre, too.
> I'm thinking this might be a go
> Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I would rip it out.
>
> I thought about that too, but was afraid to suggest it ;-)
>
> How many people are actually using COPY BINARY?
It could be useful if only single scan would be required.
But I have no strong opinion about keeping it.
Vad
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would rip it out.
I thought about that too, but was afraid to suggest it ;-)
How many people are actually using COPY BINARY?
regards, tom lane
* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001201 14:42] wrote:
> I've just noticed that COPY BINARY is pretty thoroughly broken by TOAST,
> because what it does is to dump out verbatim the bytes making up each
> tuple of the relation. In the case of a moved-off value, you'll get
> the toast reference, whic
13 matches
Mail list logo
