Excerpts from Mark Atwood's message of Tue Oct 18 18:25:58 -0700 2011: > I was not a fan of LOCAL INFILE, and if it's still there, I think it should > come out. > > If a DBA wants to load data without network delays, they would be better > served to ssh into the database machine and connect to localhost. >
I actually disagree. I think that the idea is to be able to load data in a bulk format, without having to generate INSERT statements. The *way* this command is done, with the local file in the syntax, is very weird. But the utility is massive for bulk loading. Meanwhile the non local version is another minor security risk, exposing any readable file via mysqld. I'd be in favor of copying Postgres's "COPY" command if LOAD DATA LOCAL INFILE were dropped, as it more succinctly addresses the problem. > ..m > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Olaf van der Spek > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Henrik Ingo <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Eh, my bad. There is LOAD DATA LOCAL INFILE ... but apparently not an > > > equivalent SELECT INTO LOCAL OUTFILE. Funny, I always thought there > > > was... The thing that does this is called simply "[mysql|drizzle]dump > > > --tab", there is no SQL command. > > > > Does Drizzle still support the LOCAL option with infile? > > Is there a proper replacement for load data infile? > > > > Olaf > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss > > Post to : [email protected] > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
